1910-12-05

REPORT PRESENTED.

[Stage Direction]
First Annual Report of Commission on Conservation.-Mr. Fisher.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. JAMESON moved for leave to introduce Bill (No. 27) respecting licenses to fishing vessels.
Some hon. MEMBERS: Explain.

_ Mr. JAMESON. Mr. Speaker, this Bill is identical with one which I introduced last session, but which, at the request of a member of the government, for certain reasons in the public interest, reasons which do not now exist-I refer to the then impending Hague arbitration-I did not press at that time. The Bill relates only to vessels of Canadian register engaged, or intending to engage, in the Atlantic fisheries of Canada. The object of the Bill is to facilitate the movements of vessels employed in fisTiing, more especially those engaged in the fresh fish branch of the industry. It will be purely optional with the owners of such craft to apply for licenses, and so bring their vessels under the operation of the Act, but during the time any vessel is under license her employment is limited to the fishing trade. A Bill to be introduced concurrently with this one is intended to amend the Customs Act, and exempt vessels licensed under this Act from the necessity of reporting at the customs house, the two Acts being essential to that end. As the law stands a fishing vessel is liable to a penalty of $400 if she lands her fish, or even drops anchor in harbour without reporting. This is a serious drawback to the fresh fish business, which cannot afford any delays, which it is hoped this legislation will remove.


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

[Stage Direction]
Mr. JAMESON moved for leave to introduce Bill (No. 28) to amend the Customs Act. He said: This is a companion Bill to the one I have already introduced, the two Acts being essential to the end in view.
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the first time.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. SMITH (Nanaimo) for Mr. Martin (Regina) moved for leave to introduce Bill (No. 29) respecting co-operation.
Mr. DANIEL.: Explain the Bill.


Mr. SMITH (Nanaimo).: The Bill is a copy of that brought in by the hon. member for Brantford (Mr. Harris) last session and referred to a select committee. It is simply to provide for the incorporation of co-oper-tive societies to carry on a wholesale or retail business.


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

[Stage Direction]
Mr. P 'RDEE moved for leave to introduce Bill (No. 30) respecting the inspection of railway locomotive steam boilers.
Mr. JAMESON.: 


Some hon. MEMBERS: Explain.


Mr. PARDEE.: The Bill provides for the construction of boilers and for the equipment of those boilers upon steam railway engines, also for the inspection of those-boilers when completed by an inspector general who will work under the supervision of the Railway Commission.


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

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 17) respecting the British Columbia Southern Railway Company.-Mr. Taylor (New Westminster).
Bill (No. 18) respecting the Kootenay and Arrowhead Railway Company.-Mr. Taylor (New Westminster).
Bill (No. 19) respecting the Manitoba and Northwestern Railway Company of Canada. -Mr. Cash.
Bill (No. 20) respecting the Mather Bridge and Power Company.-Mr. German.
Bill (No. 21) respecting the Vancouver and Lulu Island Railway Company.-Mr. Smith (Nanaimo).

Mr. SPEAKER.: Now that the order for questions is being called for the first time this session I wish to inform the House that under the new rule (37 subsection 2) only questions bearing an asterisk will be called by the Speaker. In' the case of other questions the answer will be handed in by the minister and when the answer is handed in the question will be struck from the Order Paper.


Mr. REID (Grenville).: I would suggest in respect to these answers which are handed in without being read, that a duplicate carbon copy may be made of them for the use of the press.


Sir WILFRID LAURIER.: As I understand it the answer is sent to the clerk who hands it into ' Hansard ' and then the question is taken from the Order Paper. If it be found to he possible I do not see why a duplicate copy should not be made.


John Dowsley Reid: The answer will not appear in ' Hansard ' until the day after it is handed in, and in the meantime the press might be furnished with a copy.


Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).: As I understand it, when a question is not starred the minister will hand in his answers, and it will appear in ' Hansard '. The questions which are starred will be read by the Speaker as heretofore and the answers given orally.

I think the suggestion of my hon. friend (Mr. Reid) is a very proper one. If the press desire to have communication of these answers a carbon copy might be supplied to them, and I would respectfully ask that the ministers should observe that rule in answering questions.


Mr. SPROULE.: I think we might go further than that. After considering this new rule carefully, I am of the opinion that it is hardly an appropriate one. There will be no notice given to the member putting the question that the answer has been handed into ' Hansard ' and it will keep him constantly on the watch. It seems to me that a copy of the answers ought to be sent to the member who puts the questions.


Robert Laird Borden: If an hon. member wants his question answered orally he can star it. If the question is not starred the answer will appear in ' Hansard ' and the question will disappear from the Order Paper so that the hon. member will know that it has been answered.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: But that obliges a member to watch the Order Paper. If we are to economize time in this way there should be some means to notify the member putting the question that the answer has been handed in.


Mr. MURPHY.: I would like to direct your attention, Mr. Speaker, to one feature of this rule which so far has not been commented on. It may be that a question is asked and not starred, and for some reason or other that question could be more conveniently answered by putting it in the form of a motion for a return. As I understand your interpretation of the new rule, a question of that kind which is not starred would remain indefinitely on the Order Paper unanswered. I would like to ask your view, Mr. Speaker, on that point?


Wilfrid Laurier: If the question is not answered it stands on the Order Paper, and when it is called the minister can say that it will stand as a notice of motion.


Robert Laird Borden: Yes, but as the Secretary of State points out, if such a question is not starred it would never be reached on the Order Paper, and the motion for a return could not be made.


Mr. FISHER.: The difficulty in that case could be obviated, if, on the minister who is interested noticing the question on the paper, he sent a notice to the clerk that it should be put in the form of motion. Then the clerk would take it off the Order Paper just as if it had been answered, and it would appear amongst the notices of motion.


Wilfrid Laurier: I do not think the question is apprehended properly. If a question is put on the Order Paper which is not starred it is an intimation to the minister that no oral answer is required. If the minister does not send in the answer then the question will remain on the Order Paper and it will be called in due course.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.



QUESTIONS.


Mr. SPROULE:: 1.	By what authority or under what commission was Mr. Justice Girouard appointed to act as Deputy Governor, or administrator of the government, during the absence of His Excellency the Governor General, last summer and fall?
2.	What powers were conferred upon him bv any such commission?
3.	Did he%as such administrator send a telegram or message to Cardinal Vannutelli, the papal legate, on the latter's arrival in Canada. If so, what were the contents of such message or telegram?
4.	In sending such message or telegram did he act upon the advice of his constitutional adviser?


Wilfrid Laurier: 1 and 2. By Letters Patent constituting the office of Governor General and Commander in Chief in and over the Dominion of Canada, dated 15th June, 1905, issued under the King's Sign Manual, it was amongst other things provided as follows:-
VI. And^whereas by ' The British North America Act, 1867,' it is amongst other things enacted, that it shall be lawful for us, if we think fit, to authorize the Governor General of Our Dominion of Canada to appoint any person or persons, jointly or severally, to be his Deputy or Deputies within any part or parts of Our Said Dominion, and in that capacity to exercise, during the pleasure of Our said Governor General, such of the powers, authorities and functions of Our said Governor General as he may deem it necessary or expedient to assign to such Deputy or Deputies, subject to any limitations or direction from time to time expressed or given by Us; Now We do hereby authorize and empower Our said Governor General subject to such limitations and directions as aforesaid, to appoint any person or persons, jointly or severally to be his Deputy or Deputies within any part or parts of Our said Dominion of Canada, and in that capacity to exercise, during his pleasure, such of his powers, functions and authorities, as he may deem it necessary or expedient to assign to him or them; Provided always, that the appointment of such Deputy or Deputies shall not affect



GIROUARD.

[Stage Direction]
Which I would translate as follows:- Tadousac, Aug., 1910. To His Excellency the Papal Legate, on board steamer.
The Administrator of the government of Canada presents his respects to His Excellency and bids him welcome.

Wilfrid Laurier: On the face of it, this Marconigram was sent during the month of August. During that month Mr. Justice Girouard did not act in the capacity of Administrator, as, during the whole of August, His Excellency was in Canada, but, on the 1st of August, His Excellency the Governor General, before leaving for his trip to the Hudson Bay, appointed Mr. Justice Girouard, Deputy Governor. Mr. Justice Girouard did not consult the ministers of the Crown and received no advice from any of them.



GUARDS OF HONOUR.

Mr. SPROULE:: 1.	On what occasions and for whom may Guards of Honour be furnished from the Canadian Permanent Force?
2.	By whose authority may they be so furnished?
3.	On what occasions were Guards of Honour furnished, from the force, at Quebec, Three Rivers and Montreal during the present year and by whose direction and under whose authority were they so furnished?
4.	Did the 65th Battalion, of Montreal, parade at the Eucharistic Congress during the carrying of the Host? and if so were they equipped with rifles and bayonets? If so, by whose authority ?


Sir FREDERICK BORDEN:: 1.	Guards of honour are authorized by King's regulations and orders for the Canadian militia, 1910, to be furnished as follows :-
(a)	To attend upon the King and other royal personages, and upon presidents of those republican states in which the Sovereign is represented by an ambassador.
(b)	At state ceremonials.
(c)	For governors and lieutenant governors administering the governments of His Majesty's possessions on such occasions as are customary within their governments.
(d)	To a lieutenant governor of a province on the opening and prorogation of a provincial legislature.
(e)	Special guards of honour may be furnished to the Governor General at any time upon the requisition of the military secretary.
(f)	On the arrival and departure of a general officer appointed to command the Canadian forces.
(g)	In the absence of the Governor General, the administrator of the government is entitled to receive the same honours as those accorded to the Governor General.
(h)	When a foreign general or flag officer lands at a military station within His Majesty's dominions to visit the civil governor or officer in command.
(i)	When a naval officer of flag rank commanding in chief lands for the first time at a port within his command.

(j)	If deemed expedient to receive distinguished personages other than those mentioned in (a), (b) and (c), and on occasions other than those specified in paragraph 1370 of the regulations, where it is laid down when honours and salutes are to be given by troops on parade.
Guards of honour axe to be carried out on all occasions where practicable by the permanent force, but, if a unit of the force is not available then by a corps of the active militia.
2.	Guards of honour are furnished by officers commanding commands or independent districts under authority of King's regulations and orders for the Canadian militia, 1910.
If guards of honour are required to be furnished for any occasion other than as specified in (1), then special authority for the same must be obtained from militia headquarters.
3.	Quebec-Opening of provincial legislature, March 15,	1910. Authority-para.
1391, King's regulations and orders, 1910.
Arrival of Major General Sir John French, inspector general of the imperial forces, 19th May, 1910. Authority given from militia headquarters, 17th May, 1910.
Departure of Major General Sir John French, 8th July, 1910. Authority issued from militia headquarters, 6th July, 1910.
Three Rivers-None.
Montreal-None.
4.	The 65th Regiment Carabiniers ' Mont-Royal ' did parade at the Eucharistic Congress during the carrying of the Host and were equipped with rifles and bayonets. They paraded voluntarily under the authority of the commanding officer of the regiment, Lieut.-Colonel A. E. D. Labelle.
In this connection it might be stated that it has been customary for many years past in Montreal, Quebec and eisewhere for French-Canadian regiments of the militia to attend the feast of Corpus Christi and parade with arms.



WEARING OF OFFICIAL ROBES BY MR.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: _ 1. On what state or other occasions, if any, is it proper for the honourable the Speaker of the House of Commons, or Senate, to wear his official robes or apparel outside the precincts of parliament during the recess or when parliament is prorogued?
2.	On all such occasions when he attends any function or gathering in that capacity, should he not he accompanied by the Sergeant-at-Arms with the Mace-who precedes him as the emblem of the authority of the House?
3.	Did the honourable, the Speaker of this House, appear attired in his robes of office in any procession or on any occasion since the prorogation in May last? If so, in what
procession and on what occasion did he so appear?
4.	Are there any precedents for his conduct in wearing his official robes of office in such procession, on such occasion?


Sir WILFRID LAURIER:: 1.	There is no rule or practice of the House of Commons governing this subject.
2.	The Speaker of the House of Commons can be accompanied by the Mace only when parliament is in session, and as a part of parliamentary procedure, or when specially authorized so to do by the House of Commons.
3.	The government is informed by His Honour the Speaker that he did take part in a solemn religious procession, in September last, in the city of Montreal, but that he did not do so in his official capacity, and was not accompanied by the Mace which is the emblem of his office.
4.	The government is not aware of any precedents in the matter referred to, although there may have been occasions when Speakers of Canadian legislatures have, under similar circumstances in the past, attended such celebrations. On such occasions it is customary in the province of Quebeq for judges of the higher courts to appear in their official costumes, and His Honour the Speaker, holding rank as a magistrate, informs the government that on the occasion above referred to he appeared similarly attired as a mark of respect for the solemnity of the occasion.



CANADIAN CADETS FOR CORONATION.

Mr. HUGHES:: 1.	Is it the intention of the government to send a small representation from each officially organized Cadets Corps, to take part in the coronation of His Majesty, next June?
2.	Has the question of sending a considerable body of Royal Military College Cadets to the same been considered?


Sir FREDERICK BORDEN.: As no official invitation has been received to send a militia contingent to England on the occasion of the coronation, nothing has been done in the matter. When the proper time comes I shall be glad to consider the suggestion contained in the question.



MESSAGE OF HOMAGE BY ADMINISTRATOR.

Mr. HUGHES:: 1.	Did the administrator of the government of Canada forward a massage tendering ' homage ' to any visitor to Canadian shores during the past summer? If so, what was the text of the message sent?
2.	Had the administrator the authority of the government of Canada for such message?
REVISED editiox.


Wilfrid Laurier: I think all the information required by this question has been given in answer to a previous question.



MILITIA OFFICERS AT RECEPTION TO PAPAL LEGATE.

Mr. HUGHES:: 1.	Was the following order issued to the Militia of Montreal during the past summer?
' Montreal, September 8, 1910.
'To^

' The following has been received. Please notify officer of

' Command Order No. 93. Command Orders by Lt.-Col. Roy, Chief Staff Officer Quebec Command.
' Montreal, September 7, 1910.
' Civic Reception to H. E. Cardinal Vannu-telli, Papal Legate, 1910.
' Officers of the Militia attending the Civic Reception at the City Hall on Thursday evening, 8th instant, to H. E. Cardinal Vannutelli, are desired to appear in full dress. (Full dress, head dress need not be worn.) An invitation has been extended to all officers of the Montreal Garrison.
'(Signed) CHARLES F. WINTER
Major.
' D.A.A.G. for C.S.O.Q.'


Frederick William Borden: Yes, this order was issued under the following circumstances :
1.	An invitation for the officers of the Montreal garrison to attend the civic reception at the city hall, on September 8, had been received from the civic authorities, and it was publicly announced that His Worship the Mayor desired all citizens attending to appear in evening dress.
2.	Under paragraph 1305, K. R. and O.,
C. M., 1910, and paragraph 1710, table A, (h) K. R. and O. for the Army, 1908, it is provided that officers attending public ceremonies and receptions should appear in full dress.	-
3.	It has been customary, for many years past, for the officers of the militia at Montreal to attend in uniform at important civic functions and public receptions, such as the inauguration of a new city council, public charity balls, St. Andrew's annual ball, &c., for which similar instructions as to the dress of those desiring to attend, now the subject of inquiry, have been issued.
4.	The officers were not ordered to attend the reception, but were simply informed of the proper dress for such an occasion, should they desire to be present and appear in uniform.



UNITED STATES DESERTER.

Mr. HUGHES :: 1.	Has the attention of the Minister of Justice been drawn to the following:


Mr. HUGHES.: 



U.S. DESERTER CAUGHT IN ONTARIO.

[Stage Direction]
Niagara Falls, Ont., Nov. 16.-^(Special.)- Provincial police inspector Mains to-day arrested John McCormick, wanted at Fort Nia-agara for desertion from the United States Army.
He wore civilian clothes, but his uniform was recovered in a second-hand store. He was turned over to the American authorities to-night.
2.	Are ' deserters' from either the army of the United States to Canada, or from that of Canada to the United States subject to extradition?
3.	Under what law was this man sent back?
Mr. AYLESWORTH :: 1.	Not otherwise than by the putting of this question.
2.	No.
3.	I am not able to say.



PEAT GAS.

Mr. HUGHES :: 
Mr. TEMPLEMAN.: This will require too long an answer. Let it stand as a notice of motion.



WINNIPEG INTERNATIONAL EXPOSITION.

Thomas Simpson Sproule: Has the government reached a conclusion as to the assistance they propose to give the International Exposition it is contemplated by the people of Winnipeg and the west to hold in Winnipeg in 1914? If so, would they make an announcement to that effect so as to serve notice to all interested parties or countries that the exposition is to take place, and the date thereof?


Wilfrid Laurier: The government have not yet come to any conclusion on this matter.



PRINTING BUREAU INQUIRY.

Mr. TAYLOR :: 1.	How many civil servants of the Department of Printing and Stationery have been dismissed, suspended or superannuated since the 1st of May last to date?
2.	What are the names of the persons, dismissed, suspended and superannuated, respectively ?	_
3.	What superannuation allowance is to be paid annually to the different persons, if any, so superannuated?
4.	Is it the intention of the government to reinstate any or all of those persons, if any, who have been suspended?
5.	Is it the intention of the government to reinstate any or all of those persons, if any, who have been dismissed?

6.	Is it the intention of the government to superannuate any or all of those persons, if any, who have been suspended or dismissed?
7.	What, if any, persons who have been dismissed from the Department of Printing and Stationery have been employed in some of the other departments of the government, and what are the names, if any, of such per sons?


Mr. MURPHY :: 1.	Five.
2.	Wm. McMahon, superannuated ; R. E. Cook, dismissed ; J. G. A. Harwood, dismissed ; A. E. Chamberlain, resigned ; John Gooden, dismissed.
3.	The only person entitled to a superannuation allowance was Mr. Wm. McMahon. Under the Act this superannuation allowance, based on his average salary for the past three years, namely, $2,887.50 is $1,155 per annum.
R. E. Cook, J. G. A. Harwood, A. E. Chamberlain and John Gooden were not entitled to superannuation. They were appointed to the Civil Service after the first of July, 1898, and were subject to the provisions of the Retirement Fund.
Their contributions to the Retirement Fund were as follows :
R. E.	Cook	$571	23J. G.	A. Harwood	
233	89A. E.	Chamberlain	
255	17John	Gooden	
102	64
Mr. Harwood applied for and obtained the $233.89 which was due him from the Retirement Fund.
Messrs. Cook, Chamberlain and Gooden have not yet applied for the sums respectively due them from the Retirement Fund.
4.	None now under suspension.	[DOT]
5.	No.
6.	Answered by reply to question No. 3.
7.	The government is not aware that any of the persons so dismissed have been employed in any departments of the government, but if names be supplied further inquiry will be made.
MANITOBA BOUNDARY QUESTION. Mr. STAPLES:
1.	Did the right honourable the premier, on the evening of July 12, 1910, at the city of Winnipeg, in a public meeting give utterance to the following words or words of similar import?-
You have been told that I am an enemy of Manitoba. You have been told that I don't want to give justice to you. I have written to Mr. Roblin and I repeat here, let him come to Ottawa where he can discuss with me what is fair and just and see if we can agree upon what is proper either in land or in money for the increased territory of Manitoba. What more can we do? If the province of Manitoba continues to be on the map a postage stamp, the fault will not be mine, the fault will be his.
2.	Has there been any correspondence between the government or Premier of Canada,
23i
and the government or Premier of Manitoba since the 12th of January, 1910, with reference to the Manitoba boundary question?
3.	Has the right honourable, the First Minister, invited the Premier of Manitoba or the government of Manitoba since the 12th January, 1910, to a conference for the purpose of discussing the boundary question?
4.	Has the government or Premier of Manitoba since the said date requested an interview to discuss this question?
5.	Has there been any discussion between the two governments or the Premiers of the respective governments since the said date in regard to the Manitoba boundary question ?_
6.	If there has been no discussion, what is the cause of the delay?
7.	Does the province of Manitoba continue to be on the map still a postage stamp? If so, whose fault is it?
8.	Can the right honourable, the First Minister, state that he is willing to concede either in land or in money for the increased territory of Manitoba?
9.	Has the right honourable, the First Minister, or' the government intimated to the government of Manitoba what he or they are willing to concede in land or money?


An hon. MEMBER.: The question is not starred.


Wilfrid Laurier: The rule is that if an hon. member wants an oral answer he puts a star to his question. If he does not he puts no star, and in that case the minister will send his answer. But a member may think sometimes it is an advantage to have the question published and the government may think it an advantage to have the answer published, so that all questions should be called, whether starred or not starred. The reply to this question is as follows:-
1. The Prime Minister gave utterance to the words therein mentioned or words of a similar import.
2 and 3. Yes. The following correspondence was exchanged between the Prime Minister and the premier of the province:- Province of Manitoba.
Premier's Office,
Winnipeg, Manitoba,
October 17, 1910.
My dear Sir Wilfrid,-
Re Terms of Extension of Manitoba Boundaries.
Although I have as yet received no reply to my letter of January 8, 1910, I feel the matter of the future development and prosperity of this province demand that I should again urge and request you to give an answer to our proposals as to the terms upon which the territory already agreed upon should be transferred to Manitoba.
I have read carefully all your published statements on the question while you were in the west. I noted your public suggestion that I should go to Ottawa and enter into conference. As to this, I am willing to-day, to-morrow or any day you name to visit Ottawa.
My sense of what is right and just for the welfare of the province will compel me to

simply repeat and ask, as onr delegates, Messrs. Rogers and Campbell, asked, for tbe same equality of treatment as is enjoyed by our sister provinces. From some of your published statements you are reported as having said that you never made any offer at all, and that Messrs. Rogers and Campbell were mistaken. However, be this as it may, surely the time has now arrived when you should be in a position to state what terms you are prepared to recommend to your parliament for acceptance.
You have in your possession our proposal which we regard as fair and just. If you are not prepared to accept them, and will undertake to make an alternative proposition, 1 will undertake and endeavour to meet you in every possible way so long as your proposition will have for its basis equality of treatment. Anything short of equality will mean the placing of Manitoba in a subordinate position towards he.r sister provinces in confederation. Possibly you may think I do not represent public opinion in this province in asking for this equality of treatment.
Let me go a step further and say that if you will make your proposition and it turns out to be such as I cannot accept, I will with your approval undertake to submit the two propositions directly to the people of this province for their consideration and decision on the principle of the initiative and referendum.
If, however, you are prepared to offer us terms of equality of treatment with the other provinces, which we have so repeatedly urged, I will at once accept, and at the approaching sessions of both parliaments all these matters might be agreed to and confirmed by legislation.
An early reply will be greatly appreciated. Yours sincerely,
(Sd.) R. P. ROBLIN.
To the Right Hon.
Sir Wilfrid Laurier, G.C.M.G.,
Prime Minister,
Ottawa, Ontario.
Prime Minister's Office, Canada,
Ottawa 22nd October, 1910.
My deal' Mr. Roblin,-In answer to yours of the 17th instant, I beg to say that I will be very happy to meet you and to resume negotiations on the question of the extension of the Manitoba boundaries, at any time that may be convenient to you.
With reference to your letter of the 8th of January last, which you say remained unanswered by me, I have to tell you frankly that in my opinion my part of the correspondence was ended, as your letter was simply a repetition of a suggestion which had been made by you in two previous communications, and which I had felt compelled to decline. I noticed that in some of your public utterances, you construed my not continuing the correspondence as an act of discourtesy. This is an opinion which I cannot entertain. At all events, I respectfully disclaim any such intention.
Believe me, dear Mr. Roblin,
Yours very sincerely,
(Sd.) WILFRID LAURIER. The Hon. R. P. Roblin,
Premier's Office,
Winnipeg, Man.


Wilfrid Laurier: Province of Manitoba.
Premier's Office,
October 27, 1910.
My dear Sir Wilfrid,-As requested by you in yours of October 22, I will visit Ottawa in the near future to discuss with you the terms upon which the boundaries of Manitoba may be extended.
With assurances of my personal regards, Yours very respectfully,
(Sd.) R. P. ROBLIN. Right Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier, G.C.M.G., Ottawa, Ontario.
4.	Yes. In the following telegram:
Canadian Pacific Railway Company's Telegraph.
New York, N.Y., Nov. 21, 1910. Sir Wilfrid Laurier,
Ottawa.
Will be in Ottawa to-morrow to resume discussion boundary matter. 11.35 a.m.
(Sd.). R. P. ROBLIN.
. 5 and 6. There was an interview between the Premier of Manitoba and the Prime Minister on the 25tli of November, 1910. At that interview it was suggested by the Prime Minister to the Premier of Manitoba that, as the "question to be settled according to the resolution of the 13th of July, 1908, was the financial terms to be granted to the province in consequence of the extension of boundaries, it would not be advisable to discuss the same then and there on account of the absence of the Minister of Finance, but that negotiations would be resumed after his return to Ottawa.
7. If the province of Manitoba still continues to be a postage stamp on the map, the blame is not with the present government of Canada.
8 and 9. To these two questions the Prime Minister has to answer that he is prepared to discuss them upon the line of the resolution adopted by this House on the 13th of July, 1908.



LEVIS DRY-DOCK.

Mr. MACDONELL:: 1. Is the statement contained in the 'Navy' for November, 1910, attributed to Sir Robert Perks, correct, as follows:-
' Alluding to the new dry-dock scheme at Levis, opposite Quebec, Sir Robert mentioned that plans and detailed drawings had now been lodged with the Dominion Government, in accordance with the Dry-Dock Subsidy Act of May last, and the Joint Stock Company headed by the Canadian Pacific Railway and the Allan Line had been registered in Canada for carrying out the work. The dock, said Sir Robert, will be of the largest type a thousand feet, long, and will be entitled to the subsidy on the first scale guaranteed under the Dominion Dry-Dock Act of 3| per cent of four millions of dollars for thirty-five years. The Company's financial arrangements are all concluded, subject to the assent of the Dominion Government, and all the

plans and schedules which were lodged with the government on September 28, are now under their consideration.'
2. If all of the above is not correct, in what respect is it incorrect?


Mr. PUGSLEY.: It is true that plans and detailed drawings for the construction of a dry-dock at Levis have been filed, such dock to be of the dimensions stated in the question. The company's application for subsidy is, however, not in accordance with the provisions of the statute, and it has been informed that the government is ready at any time to enter into a contract with the company under the terms of the said Dry-Dock Subsidy Act.



THE QUEBEC BRIDGE.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. LENNOX-by Mr. Roche-moved:
For a copy of the last advertisement for tenders, and the specification and contract or proposed contract for the erection of the Quebec bridge?
Mr. GRAHAM.: I think there are reasons in the public interest why my hon. friend should not press this motion at this time. A little later I shall be glad to give him this information.
Motion allowed to stand.



VANCOUVER CUSTOM ENTRIES.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. BARNARD-by Mr. Burrell-moved:
For a copy of all Customs entries made at Vancouver, British Columbia, for goods entered free of duty by each of the following parties during each of the years 1901, 1902, 1903, 1901, 1905, 1906, 1907, 1908, 1909 and 1910: -Robert Kelly, by himself, agent, or broker for him; Kelly, Douglas & Company, or agent, or broker, for them; and by any or all of the Departments of the Dominion Government; also by any other person, firm or firms, or broker having been allowed to make free entry at Vancouver, British Columbia, during above years, declared as for Supply to the Dominion Government.
Mr. PATERSON.: I am afraid the hon. member is asking for something that I would not be able to give him. He had perhaps better let the motion stand, and I will talk the matter over with him.
Motion allowed to stand.



RAILWAY ACCIDENTS.

Ralph Smith: For a return showing the total number of accidents on Railways in Canada since April 1, 1909, and up to date the number of fatal accidents; the number on each railway, and the causes of the same. Also, the number of accidents on construction work, fatal or otherwise, on the Canadian Northern and the Grand Trunk Pacific railways, and the causes of the same.


George Perry Graham: I suppose my hon. friend will not have any objection to amend the motion so as to confine it to accidents injurious to property or to life. There are-thousands of minor accidents such as derailments, which happen every day. While they are really accidents, they cannot be said to be injurious to property or life.
Motion amended accordingly, and agreed to.



THE OYSTER INDUSTRY.

Mr. A. B. WARBURTON (Queen's, P.E. I.) moved:: For a copy of all correspondence, reports, memorials, surveys and other papers in the possession of the government, and not already brought down, regarding the oyster industry of Canada; also a copy of all correspondence, reports and other papers regarding the ownership and control of oyster beds and of barren bottoms suitable for oyster culture, and regarding the consolidating of the ownership with the control and regulation of such beds and barren bottoms, and vesting the same in the hands of the Dominion government; also a copy of all correspondence, reports, recommendations and other papers relating to the leasing or sale of such beds or barren bottoms, or of portions of them, for the purpose of oyster culture or cultivation. Also a copy of all correspondence and reports relating to the culture, cultivation and conservation of oysters and other mollusks.
He, said: Before you put that motion, Mr. Speaker, I will ask your indulgence, and that of the House while for a short time I call your attention to and invoke your sympathy on behalf of our vanishinig oyster industry. The maritime provinces, and to a lesser extent the Pacific province, have an almost inexhaustible potential wealth in the shell fish industries along their coasts. Efforts have been made to conserve the various industries, the various natural resources which we have on the land and in the sea; but up to the present, nothing of any account has been done with regard to our very valuable oyster fisheries and oyster industries on the Atlantic and Pacific coasts. I have deemed it my duty, as representing a part of the country which is famed for its oysters, to bring this matter as forcibly as I can before parliament, hoping, not only to interest the government, but also to interest those hon. members who do not reside on, or near the coast, as I do, in this very important matter. We have, Sir, beyond possible contradiction, not only some of the very best oysters in the world, but we have the most productive oysters. I do not mean to say that every oyster grown in Canada is a good oyster, but I say that a very large portion of them excel in quality. I know that the best English oyster does not compare

with it, I know the best American oyster does not compare with it; and if there is any oyster on the face of the earth, or under the waters of the earth, which can compare with it, I do not know where it is.
Let me premise the few words I propose to say with a statement as to the nature of the oyster itself. The oyster is a fish, or an animal, or a living organism, whichever you choose to call it, which flourishes in brackish water. It will not grow or propagate itself in sea water, because there is too much salinity in it; it will not propagate itself in fresh water because there is too little salinity. It must have conditions suitable to its growth, such as a certain temperature of the water, which is not to be found on all coasts, and also a certain salinity of water, which is found in many places where the sea ebbs and flows, and where there is an inflow of fresh water. I may say that there are many species of oysters known in the world. We h'.ve on the Atlantic coast to-day to deal with one kind, on the Pacific coast we have to deal with another kind; and in Europe, outside of Portugal, they have to deal with another and	those	of	Europe	and elsewhere,It is not necessary here to weary the House by pointing out the biological differences which exist between the various kinds of oysters on the Atlantic coasts of America and	those	of	Europe	and elsewhere,but there are several marked differences. As far as the taste is concerned, I do not think that much difference can be fouhd except in this respect, that the oyster takes its flavour very largely or entirely from the water in which it is grown, and it is for	that	reason	that our oystersare	better	than others, because they
have better bottoms from which to draw a wholesome supply of food. It is owing to, that fact that our oysters are so much better. If you take oysters from southern latitudes and plant them in our beds, inside of a year or two you get an oyster of exactly the same flavour as the native oyster. You can plant them on Bedeque or Malpeque beds, and in a year or two you should have Bedeque or Malpeque oysters all right, because they have acquired the peculiar flavour which makes them so desirable.
I hardly think it necessary for me to point out the importance of oysters not only as a luxury but as a food. We are accustomed to look upon oysters, on account of their cost, as a luxury; there is no reason why oysters should not be treated as a food, for. with proper cultivation, when the oyster is afforded a proper habitat, and the industr.v is afforded proper opportunities, the oyster becomes not only a luxury but a most excellent and cheap article of food. There is no reason in the world why it should not become an article of food. Some 18 or 19 Mr. WARBURTON.
years ago when-I used to buy oysters by the barrel to put in my house, they kept well from November till March, and I found them the cheapest article of food that came into my house, as well as being the most delicious. We know that the government have taken the very commendable step of appointing a commission to consider the best means of conserving our natural resources, the commission has held meetings in Ottawa and elsewhere, and are making very vigorous efforts to carry out the object for which it was appointed. I do not think Sir. that there is an hon. member on either side of this House who does not applaud the efforts of the government in this direction. Efforts have been made to propagate and increase the swimming fish. We have hatcheries on the Atlantic and Pacific coasts, and I suppose on the lake coasts of Ontario as welh where the ova of swimming fish is collected, and you have fish hatcheries established from which to distribute the ova in the waters where it is most likely to become fruitful, and to replenish waters which have become depleted. The same remark applies to the lobster industry. We have on the Atlantic coast of the maritime provinces a number of lobster hatcheries which are doing a most excellent work. There is no question that those lobster hatcheries have added very largely to the supply of lobsters which are now produced along our coasts.
But so far no effort, to my knowledge, except a tentative one, by private individuals has been made towards the culture and cultivation of the oyster. Here let me explain why I use those two terms ' culture ' and ' cultivation,' which may seem to some synonymous. In oyster parlance, those two words have very different meanings. The cultivation of the oyster means the bringing of the small seed oysters from their original habitat and planting them upon beds where they grow and improve, after two or three years, or until such time as may be necessary to bring them to the required size for commerce. By that system you do not increase the number of oysters, but owing to the greatly increased growth, you increase the bulk and the quantity of food. It is estimated that the quantity or bulk of the oysters produced in that way is, roughly speaking, about ten to one; that is, if you put down a hundred barrels of seed you get a thousand barrels of oysters. That is the system of cultivation. Oyster culture is another matter altogether. In this case you do not gather the seed oyster, but you gather the spat, and the spat grows to be the seed oysters. By so doing you prevent the loss of countless millions of oyster eggs which otherwise would go to destruction.
I wish to call your attention to the extraordinary fertility of the oyster. The fer-tilitv of the oyster, as reported by the United States Bureau of Fisheries and by scien-

tific men in the United States and elsewhere, is almost incredible. In England and France it is not so great as it is here, but still it goes into millions. With us, a fair sized oyster is capable of producing fifteen or sixteen millions of ova, and a large specimen has been estimated by United States experts to produce as high as sixty millions.
Our American friends calculate that it is only about one in every 1,100,000 that ever comes to maturity. It is just as well, perhaps, that they do not come to maturity, because if they were to come to maturity the sea would soon not be big enough to hold them. The ova or spat swims about for a few days and it is fertilized by contact with the water. Enormous quantities of the ova are lost. If it touches a spft or slimy place it is bound to peTish. Millions and millions are used for the food of other fishes and even the mother oyster has no objection to sucking up the ova as she is gathering her food from the waters. The young oyster has a slim chance of existence, only one in 1,100,000 surviving. But, they are so prolific that even in that way there will be no difficulty in keeping up the natural beds if they had not the further enemy-man-to contend against. I wish, in connection with this matter of the conservation of oysters, along with other natural resources, to read an extract from a paper on ' The Wholesomeness of Oysters as Food,' by Henry C. Rowe, president of the Connecticut OysteT Growers' Association, and New York and New England Oyster Shippers' Association, New Haven, Conn., presented before the Fourth International Fish Congress, held at Washington, United States, from the 22nd to the 26th of September, 1908. Mr. Rowe, in that paper, says:-
The necessity for the conservation of the resources of the nation has recently been brought emphatically before the public. The increase of our population in the past and its greater prospective increase emphasize the importance of not only conserving our resources but of encouraging the creation and development of productive industries. During the past thirty-five years such an industry has been created and developed in the propagation and growing of oysters. This industry produces already annually a great amount of valuable food, its yearly value in the states of Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Virginia, and California amounting to $9,316,252. Other states are developing the industry, but these named have taken the lead. A large population is supported directly by it, and perhaps still more by contributory industries.
That, however, I may say, is only for a portion of the United States. The returns I have, show that it is something like $18,000,000 or $20,000,000 for the whole country.
During the same period, while a large portion of our forests have been destroyed, the oyster farmers and cultivators have purchased from the different states permission to cultivate the hitherto barren ground covered by the waters of our bays and sounds to a depth of 25, 50, or even 100 feet, and have, by expensive and hazardous experiments, caused this unproductive ground to yield annually 10,235,566 bushels of oysters, a valuable and nutritious food, and furnished employment and livelihood to thousands.
I may say, parenthetically, that they produce more oysters in one year than we have produced on the best beds in the world since confederation.
While the United States and the various states have at public expense propagated millions of swimming fish, to be caught by those who are engaged in these fisheries, the oyster grower and planter has at his own cost propagated his own crops and worked out his own results by patient labour, costly experiments, and large investment. Instead of having his crops produced and protected for him, as has been done for the fishers of swimming fish, he has paid large sums to the states for the' use of the ground on which he might create and prosecute this industry.
I wish, also, to draw your attention to our own output of oysters. Our own output has been falling off year in and year out for the last thirty-five or forty years, and this falling off is going on with such Tapidity that,
I think, the time is very close when we will have no oysters at all. I wish to call your attention, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House to a very important consequence that will follow should we allow our northern oyster beds to be fished out, and that is that you cannot reproduce them. If once our northern oyster beds are gone they are gone to stay gone. You may get a quantity of oysters there, but you cannot propagate and renew these beds so as to bring them back to the condition in which they formerly were. Our oysters are in northern waters and that means that the oyster beds are in colder water than the southern oysters. Oysters brought up from the southern natural beds will thrive in the northern beds, but they will not propagate in colder water. The reverse happens in the case of northern oysters taken south; they will propagate, but that is not the ease with oysters brought from the warmer water of the south to the colder water of the north. So that, if our beds are, by any chance, allowed to be destroyed-and many of them have been destroyed in the last forty years , -you will have to say good-bye to the oyster for ever and the words Malpeque and Bedeque will be names that will only live in tradition.


Clarence Jameson: How were the beds to which you have alluded destroyed?


Alexander Bannerman Warburton: They were mainly fished out. Now, I have m my hand the

evidence given in the first session of this parliament by Capt. Kemp, oyster expert, and, I think, a veTy good man. He gives, at the end of his evidence, a table of the oyster returns by provinces, the total showing the actual quantities and value of the oysters taken in the Dominion ever since 1875 and compiled from the annual reports of the department of fisheries. I am going to ask that I be allowed to hand this statement to the reporter. It might be of use to those who take an interest in the matter, but I am perfectly aware that no one could hear me read these figures and remember anything about them. But I wish, before placing them in * Hansard,' to quote the figures for five year periods to show how our oyster supply has been falling off. This return comes down to 1907-8. I see by the report of the Department of Marine and Fisheries -fisheries branch-placed upon the table of the House the other day, that the returns have been brought down to the last season. I have not taken these figures in. But, taking, for instance, the year 1882, I find that the quantity of oysters taken in Prince Edward Island was 57,042 barrels. I am only taking Prince Edward Island as an illustration. I might also take New Brunswick. In New Brunswick, for that same year, there was a catch of 5,859 barrels; in 1887 there were caught in New Brunswick 23,196 barrels, and in Prince Edward Island 36,448 barrels. In 1892, five years later, New Brunswick, 17,840 barrels; Prince Edward Island, 32,937 barrels. In 1897, five years later again, there were caught in New Brunswick 19,835 barrels, and in Prince Edward Island 20,915. In 1902 there were caught in New Brunswick 12,795 barrels; in Prince Edward Island, 20,334 barrels, and in 1907, 15,435 barrels in New Brunswick, and in Prince Edward Island, 9,672 barrels. The total catch up to the year 1907-8 in the whole Dominion was as follows :-
Barrels;
New Brunswick	 502,149
Prince Edward Island	 831,012
Nova Scotia	 64,119
British Columbia	 37,927
1,435,207
The value is $1,515,250. We have only returns from British Columbia since 1884. The table is as follows:-


Alexander Bannerman Warburton: 



OYSTER RETURN (BY PROVINCES.)

[Stage Direction]
Table showing the Aggregate Quantities and Value of Oysters caught in the Dominion since 1876, compiled from Annual Reports
of the Department of Fisheries.
Ykab.	New Brunswick.	Prince Edward Island.	Nova Scotia.	British Columbia.	Totals.	Quantity.	Value.	Quantity.	Value.	Quantity.	Value.	Quantity.	Value.	Quantity.	Value.Brls.	S	Brls.	$	Brls.	[DOT]$	Brls.	$	Brls.	$1875	10,020	30,000	41	82	1,655	4,965	11,716	35,1071876	7,911	23,733	7,905	23,715	1,040	3)120	16,856	50,5681877	7,738	23,214	20,850	62,550	'980	2)940	29,568	88,7041878	11,170	33,810	17,902	53'706	912	2)754	30,090	90,2701879. ..	9,420	28,260	18,145	54,435	1,067	3^201	28)632	85,8961880	12,280	36,840	20,297	60,891	l'861	5)583	34,438	103,3141881..	8,413	25,239	20,815	62,445	2,270	6', 810	31,498	94,4941882	5,859	17,577	57,042	171^126	l'745	5)235	64,646	193,9381883	10,317	30,951	38,880	116'640	1^343	4,029	50,540	151,6201884	11,851	35,553	28/290	84)870	1)595	4,785	220	1,250	41)956	126,4581885	27,368	82,104	28,204	84,612	1,310	3,930	250	1,250	57,132	171,8961886	23,083	84,249	33,125	99,375	1,397	4,191	300	2,100	62,905	189,9151887	23,196	69,588	36,448	109,344	1,716	5,148	3,500	61,360	187,5801888	161384	49| 152	35; 861	107)588	1)589	4,767	1,200	2,400	55,034	163,9071889	17,760	53,280	41,257	123,771	2,532	7,596	1,500	5,250	63,049	189,8971890	16,710	50,130	35,203	105,609	3,013	9,039	1,750	7,000	56,676	171,7781891	14,934	44,802	41,030	123,090	4,318	12,954	750	3,000	61,032	183,8461892	17,840	53,520	32,937	98,811	3,776	11,328	1,000	4,000	55,553	167,6591893	16,365	49,095	29,627	88,881	3,488	10,464	1,600	8,000	51,080	156,1401894	16,960	67,940	24,055	96,220	2,512	10,048	1,600	S,000	45,127	182,1081895	18,070	72,280	25,463	101,852	2,540	10,160	1,600	8,000	47,673	192,2921896	14,700	58,800	30,214	120,856	2,460	9,840	1,200	4,800	48,574	194,2961897	19,835	79,340	20,915	83,660	2,372	9,4S8	1,000	8,000	44,722	180,4881898	22,675	IK),700	26,484	105,936	2.097	8,388	2,400	12,000	53,656	217,0241899	17,250	69,000	18,236	72,944	2,027	8,108	2,000	12,000	40,513	162,0521900	19,240	76,960	17,825	71,300	1.855	7,420	3,000	12,00u	41,920	167,6801901	14,460	57,840	24,972	99,888	1,690	6,760	3,000	15,000	44,122	179,4881902	12,795	51,180	20,334	81,336	1,663	6,652	2,500	16,000	37,292	155,1681903	12,470	62,350	18,333	91,665	1,354	6,770	3,600	18,000	35,757	178,7851904	15,320	76,600	18,006	90,030	1,411	7,055	3,250	13,000	37,987	186,6851905	14,300	71,500	17,656	88,280	1,466	7,330	1,02?	7,190	34,449	174,3001906	14,920	89,520	14,988	89 928	1,722	10,332	725	5,075	32,355	194,8551907-8	15,435	92,610	9,672	77,376	1,337	8,022	855	5,985	27,299	183,993Total	502,149	1,837,677	831,012	2,902,812	64,119	229,212	37,927	182,800	1,435,207	5,152,501
to
to
[Stage Direction]

In the same connection I would like to show you how some of the famous beds are being depleted. This also is a table that I will ask to he allowed to place in the hands of the reporters, but I will make one or two extracts from the returns. These returns are up to the year 1907. I will take Malpeque, for instance. In 1896 there were 4,200 barrels credited to Malpeque ; 1901, 2,000 barrels ; 1906, 2,450 barrels ; 1907,	400 barrels. Then, we have
Richmond bay. I may say that the Richmond bay oyster is commonly shipped under the name of Malpeque. It is just about the same kind of oyster. In 1896 there were 6,000 barrels shipped ; 1901, 4,050 ; 1906, 2,155 ; 1907, 700. The table is as follows :
Year.	Grand River.	Malpeque.	Richmond Bay.	S. Side.	Traveller's Rest.	Remarks.Bbls.	Bbls.	Bbls.	Bbls.	Bbls.	1907....	130	400	700	75	483	1906....	1,700	2,450	2,155	140	1,000	1905....	2,000	2,600	2,500	400	2,000	1904....	1,660	2,220	3,800	400	2,025	1903...	950	2,225	2'800	250	3,150	1902....	2,025	2,250	2,450	200	6,000	1901....	2,000	2,000	4,050	200	5,500	1900...	1,500	900	4,500	122	5,200	1899....	1,440	1,500	4 000	80	3,750	1898....	2,875	1,800	5,000	160	3,400	1897....	1,725	1,060	3,900	40	5,000	1896....	2,540 5,000 4,517	4,200 *746	6,000	3,700	1895....	*Carleton, 9,113. t Richmond Bay and S. Side from now on.1894....	1,200	1-10,500	1893....	5,800	1,869	16,651	1892....	3,800 5.400 1.400	20,900	Malpeque and Richmond Bay.1891....	J25,000 24,120	1890. .	380	1889....	2,250	4,606	21,930	1888.. .	4,000	1,100	20,950	1887....	3,470	2,511	23,514	1886....	3,600	3,000	20,000	1885....	2,750	1885..	.. 1884..	..	2,750 3,600	6781 200/	Richmond Bay. 17* 080 } Bedeque Bay.	
Bedeque bay is practically a thing of the past. Malpeque bay, I am glad to say, is now closed, and Bedeque bay is also. Bedeque has been for a long time practically devoid of oysters, the supply being practically depleted. They get a few barrels- very few-there each year but it is practically a thing of the past to-day. It was a better oyster than the Malpeque ; it was the best oyster beyond any question that we ever had.
I wish to call your attention further to this matter of the falling off of the supply of oysters and I shall do so to some extent at least from my own personal knowledge. The figures which I have given regarding the falling off in the supply of oysters show that in Prince Edward Island in 19078 only about one-sixth of the quantity of oysters was caught as compared with the number caught in 1882. I should tell you also that the barrel of 1882 was a much
larger barrel than that of 1907, the one being the old flour barrel and the other a two and a half bushel barrel, so that you will see that the falling off was even greater than the figures would indicate. I might speak for a moment about Bedeque. Bedeque -bay is the bay that you pass through going into Summersrde harbour. It was long famous for this oyster. The Bedeque oyster was the oyster that gave Prince Edward Island its fame as the home of good oysters ; it was a superior oyster to the Malpeque. It was found on the southern side of the coast while the Malpeque was found three or four miles across on the northern side, but, it was fished and fished and fished until finally there was nothing left worth fishing for. Of late years we have been getting a few, but very few. I speak about the Bedeque bed in order to show you how rich it formerly was. Fifty or sixty years ago they
Alexander Bannerman Warburton: used to load vessels with oysters there. They were so extremely numerous that the farmers used to bring them ashore by thousands of bushels and burn them for lime. At that time there was no market for them. I cannot say that I criticise or find fault with the farmers for what they did, because if. they had not done this at that time the oysters would have remained there and died. But I only point this out to show you how enormous was the oyster yield at the bottom of that bay. I had never had any personal knowledge of the Bedeque bay oyster fisheries, but in my boyhood I remember the fisheries in the Narrows, North river and Malpeque bay.
I remember as a boy going down with some people to the Narrows, and for three or four miles you could see oysters absolutely covering the ground, the same as ripe apples under a tree when shaken, and you could get seven or eight barrels in a short time without difficulty. Go to the same place now in many of these bays and you cannot get an oyster. If a man gets half a barrel in the course of a day he is doing remarkably well. The North river is only three miles from Charlottetown. It was formerly rich with oysters, but to-day it is practically fished out. I was talking with a friend the other day about the subject and he told me that thirty or thirty-five years ago he went out to get some oysters and that in the course of the day he got eight barrels. You cannot get eight barrels now in a fortnight. North river, has now been closed and, I am gliad to say, now promises to come up again all right naturally. Give the oyster a year and he will come to the front ; he will look for these beds and he will plant them himself. You cannot always have them closed, and whenever they are opened every man has the right to fish in the natural beds, and that river will be swept as clean as a floor inside of a fortnight.


Robert Laird Borden: How long does it take an oyster to come up to maturity?


Alexander Bannerman Warburton: It is commercially valuable at three years of age, but its best commercial value is four years. That is in the northern water. They grow faster in the warmer water of the south. Now, Mr. Speaker, I think perhaps I have said enough under that heading to call your attention to this matter and to point out its importance. Then again, in taking up the -question of oysters, you have to consider that the oyster is a brackish water animal. He has to have a certain temperature and salinity. He must have water of a moderate temperature a fairly warm temperature, before he can come into existence, but when he comes into existence, and comes to his swimming days and when he gets over the swimming stage
and settles down he can stand anything above freezing water.


Robert Laird Borden: Has the hon. gentleman stated how many bays or localities have been closed in Prince Edward Island, and for what length of time?


Alexander Bannerman Warburton: They are usually closed for two years. This year there is Pownall bay, Vernon river, North river and Bedeque bay. There may be others but these are the only four that I can remember at the present moment.


Robert Laird Borden: Are they closed periodically from time to time?


Alexander Bannerman Warburton: Yes, I cannot remember about the Bedeque bed, but these other -beds have been closed two or three times-I do not remember the number- but it is more than once. Now, Mr. Speaker, in this connection let me point out to you the reason why our bays, rivers and waters in the maritime provinces are so eminently adapted to the cultivation of oysters. The oyster is a fish that lives almost entirely upon a small primary vegetable organism known as a diatom. About 95 per cent of the oyster feed consists of this organism. It is almost infinitesimal in size, is supplied in the water and is sucked in by the oyster in enormous quantities. The oyster will also take other matters, even animal substances, but the quantity is so small that it need not be taken into consideration.
The members from the maritime provinces will know that our bays and many of our rivers are separated from the sea by a series of sand hills which are marked by channels here and there through which the ocean water ebbs and flows. For miles and miles along our northern shore there are almost landlocked bays with narrows inside, and the south shore, which does not require so much protection, is indented by bays through which also the sea water ebbs and flows. The rise and fall of the tide on the north side of the island is about four feet while on the southern coast it is six or seven feet and at times eight feet. Now, as brackish water is absolutely necessary to the existence of the oyster, the salt water is provided from the sea while the small streams of fresh water pouring into these bays and narrows and mixing with the salt water gives you the required salinity for oyster culture, which taking the water at one, ranges from 1.0007 to 1.025. It is probable that the oyster cannot live in water saltier or fresher than within this range. Then, the fresh water streams which flow into these narrows and bay3, have on both sides of them, and often at their mouths great expanses of marsh land which supply the food for the oysters. The running streams bring down the vegetable

who killed the goose that laid the golden eggs.	.
As I intend to take up the question of oyster culture, I shall for a moment refer to oyster culture in France. In the 50's, or the early 60's the oyster industry in France amounted to almost nothing as the^ beds had been practically fished out. Prior to the Napoleonic wars there had been very large beds off the coast oi France but they had been greatly depleted. During the Napoleonic wars these beds were not fished, they were left entirely alone, and after the wars they were again fished and produced an immense number of oysters, running up to 70,000,000 oysters in the year. There, as elsewhere, the people were satisfied that these beds were inexhaustible, they had not learned wisdom because the beds had been partly depleted before the wars, and that it was entirely due to these wars that the beds then abounded in oysters. It was useless in those days to reason with these people because they pointed to the fact that the output or catch of oysters was being kept up, that was their reply, they pointed to the statistics of the catch when any scientist or any one far-seeing enough raised the question of the ultimate depletion of the beds; but they did not state that it took many more .men working a longer time and with better appliances to keep up the catch. The time came when the production was reduced to a minimum and the oyster fisheries of France were of practically no value.
I may say, without intending it as a compliment to you, Mr. Speaker, or to other gentlemen of French extraction in this House, that the French people, when they see a thing, exercise a g*eat deal of common sense in bringing it to bear on actual conditions, a Monsieur de Bon took up the matter. He discovered that he could catch the spat oysters on hurdles between high and low water mark, a Monsieur Coste, who seems to have had the ear of the Emperor Napoleon, heard of the matter, he visited Italy where oyster culture was practised, as it had been in the time of the Romans, he returned to France and there introduced Italian methods of oyster culture. He was temporarily successful and his early successes induced many people to go into the business and plant oysters with more or less success. But they did not devote attention to the biological needs of the oyster, that was a matter which had to be learned by experience, and, after two or three years, owing to storms and other causes, the whole plant was destroyed and Monsieur Coste and others gave it up as a bad job. But it was taken up later and proved a great success. The difficulty with these early struggling pioneers was that they did not know the conditions. It seems that on the coast of France there are only certain Mr. WARBURTON.
places where you can produce oysters, you can grow them on the beds in many places but they can only be produced in one or two places. The only places where they can grow the young seed oysters, the spat, with success, are at the Bay of Aroachon, and another place called Auray, where they make a great success of the production. In these bays French people now carry on an enormous industry giving employment, directly or indirectly, or feeding, something like 300,000 people. The catch of the oyster spat in France, according to the last report I have seen, comes to something over fourteen hundred million oysters a year. These are largely seed oysters, the great industry in France is shipping seed oysters to other countries, to England for instance. For the great beds of Barnstable in England the seed is imported from France and planted on beds a couple of square miles in area. They leave the young oysters on these beds for two or three years, Barnstable being apparently a good feeding ground. The system of running the oyster beds at Barnstable, is reduced to a very fine thing They have regular checker-board plans of the whole oyster beds,_thejr know to a dot which kind of oyster is in each block. When they get orders for oysters, they look up their maps or charts and catch them where they know they are. They have brought the thing down to a strictly business basis. I wish again to quote from Mr. Kellog at page 77. Speaking of the period, after the failure had taken place of Mr. Coste's efforts, he said:
After a disheartening experience, the French industry began to revive. One extremely important feature of its subsequent growth was the lease of oyster grounds by the state to individuals. What had formerly been public property, now came under the control of private interests, ambitious to make it as productive as possible. Th,ese also Were afforded protection, and as a consequence, capital was invested in large amounts. That this was the only wise course to pursue, has since been proved in every country in which an oyster industry has been developed, and it is because such a policy has not yet been adopted bv any of our Atlantic states toward the clam industry that it has declined into its present state. Common sense indicates, and the historical record proves, that this is one of the fundamental requirements for the artificial rearing of any form. Slowly the important facts concerning the conditions necessary for the increase of the oyster were learned and applied.
That information is obtained in exactly the same way as that adopted by the Minister of Agriculture in order to obtain biological information concerning plants. The Department of Agriculture here and the Ontario department spend large sums to find out the elements that go to make up the various sorts of plants and endeavour to accomplish what Professor Gavitz has

succeeded in doing, namely make two blades of grass grow where one grew before. That costs money, but it is money well spent. It gives farmers the information they require, and no one would complain even if double the money were spent to get that valuable information. The same course should be pursued with regard to the oyster industry. To make up for the great falling off in our oysters, which I have pointed out, resort is had naturally to the importation of inferior bivalves from the United States. Let me call attention to the quantity imported from that country in shell and in bulk. I have only the returns since 1896, but I presume that if we went further back we would find pretty much the same thing. In 1896 we imported 63,000 gallons shelled in bulk. In 1910 we imported 226,128 gallons. From 1896 to 1910 we imported shelled oysters in bulk 2,819,359 gallons, valued at $3,346,241, all of which might just as well have been grown in Canada.


Mr. ARMSTRONG.: What country were they . imported from?


Alexander Bannerman Warburton: From the United States. In the report of the Fisheries Branch of the Department of Marine and Fisheries there is a very valuable, special appended report on the oyster fisheries by Mr. Found of the Dominion fisheries, to which I wish to call attention. It will be found on page lvi. He says:
During the fiscal year, which ended on March 31, 1910, there were imported into Canada from the United States, 4,150 barrels in the shell, 226,128 gallons in bulk, 454,850 cans of one pint and under, 17,258 cans containing over one pint, but not more than one quart, and 37,703 lbs. otherwise prepared, or preserved, the total value of which is placed at $368,412.
There can be no question that in the United States they have some very good oysters-the Bluepoints for instance- but they are not equal to ours; and when you go further south, you get a softer oyster. When on this question of the importation of raw oysters shelled, I would like to point out that while they are sound, clean food, they have not anything of the oyster about them except their appearance and shape. There is a process followed in the putting up of shelled oysters which perhaps is not known to hon. gentlemen. It does not hurt the oysters for food, but spoils their flavour. Oysters will not keep for any length of time if packed i-n tins or any other vessels in their own water. When sent out that way, they will not keep more than a week ox ten days; but in order that they may keep longer, a large block of ice is put into the tub, and the oysters last in good condition so long as the ice lasts, but their flavour is destroyed.
The bulk oysters are put through a freshening process. Oysters in the shell are put into fresh water, when they discharge the salt water and gradually absorb the fresh. The others are treated to a bath of fresh water, about five degrees above their own temperature, which has the effect of taking away all the salt water, and also their flavour, though it enables them to keep longer. Incidentally there is an advantage to the shipper in this that when the oysters get this fresh water bath they become fattened, they are bloated and become a blubbery sort of food. If you go into a hotel in Ottawa or any other western city and ask for raw oysters, they will bring you bloated blubbery things which have very little taste, and the probability is they have had a freshening in fresh water. Incidentally the bulk oysters treated in that way are increased 20 per cent -five gallons from the ocean will make six under that process.
I wish now to refer to the condition of our rivers and other waters. We have in our province enormous beds of what are called mussel mud. These are really deposits of oyster shells and organic matter from oysters. For instance, in St. Peter's bay it is found that the mud to a depth of 25 or 30 feet and running for miles, is composed almost entirely of oyster shells which have been deposited there through countless ages, showing that there were great quantities of oysters there at one time. The same thing is to be found in nearly every bay and river. Our farmers use this mud extensively as a stimulant for their land; the lime, I believe is the valuable element in it, but digging the beds has an injurious effect on the oysters and the spats. We have enormous quantities of ground however, where there are no mussel beds and which are quite available for proper oyster culture.. We have enormous areas of barren bottoms. To give you an idea of the extent of our natural oyster beds in the maritime provinces, I quote again from Mr. Found's report, and I am satisfied he is perfectly correct:-
At the present time there are possibly 5,000 acres of producing natural beds in New Brunswick, 4,300 acres in Prince Edward Island, and 1,250 acres in Nova Scotia, or in all 10,550 acres. The area that might be made oyster-producing, with the expenditure of some capital, and considerable industry and energy is, broadly speaking, limitless, as the conditions as previously stated, appear favourable for oyster culture, on practically the whole coast.
I wish also to quote what was said by Mr. Kemp in his examination before the Marine and Fisheries Committee two sessions ago. At pages 10 and 11 of his evidence I asked him this question:-

Q. I have been informed that there are something like 15,000 acres of barren, lands suitable for oyster culture in Bedeque and Richmond bay. Is that an exaggerated statement?-A. I should not think it is.
That is a very small portion of the whole. I asked again:-
Q. I do not know so much about the mainland bays as I do about those on Prince Edward Island. There is Bedeque bay which is considered to yield the best of all oysters? - A. With respect to Bedeque bay, I think the bottom has been destroyed by mud diggers. [DOT]
He went on to say that it was a very large bed, and in reply to a further question he said: ' I think that was considered the best bed.' I pressed him also as to the area of barren bottoms suitable for oyster culture. I asked him if 100,000 acres would be an extravagant estimate. He did not care to be positive as to that, saying that it could be ascertained. But if 15,000 acres in Malpeque and Bedeque bays is a correct estimate, there must, in the whole province, be enormous areas of barren bottoms suitable for oyster culture.
Another authority I would like to refer to is the late Judge Pope, who was county judge of Prince county 30 or 40 years ago, a man of great ability, who made a hobby of oyster culture. Before confederation he, himself, planted a bed which is still in existence. He got a grant of land for the purpose and held the land in fee simple. He estimated the area of barren bottoms well adapted for the cultivation of oysters along the Prince Edward Island coasts, bays and rivers at from 200,000 ffo 300,000 acres, and I have no doubt he was correct. In fact, I would be inclined to go further, from the investigations I have made. In some places in the United States it has been found possible to cultivate oysters in 100 feet of water, which was at one time thought to be absurd. The result is that the beds there are sometimes 5 or 6 miles from the shore. The great bulk of their oysters, however, are taken in waters not exceeding 50 feet in depth. Our oysters are taken in waters from 10 to 20 feet in depth. If it is possible to fish oysters in 100 feet of water, there is no place in the Strait of Northumberland where oysters cannot be cultivated, except at the spots where the current is too strong, or the bottom is not suitable. But apart from the Strait of Northumberland, we have plenty of land where oysters may be cultivated without going to deep water yet a while.
Now, I come to another matter, and I wish my hon. friend the Minister of Marine and Fisheries to understand that I am not criticising him or his department or his predecessors under former governments or their departments, in what I am about to say, because there are some things which are inevitable under the conditions which Mr. WARBURTON.
.exist, and which I want to have altered. I refer to the method employed to meet the falling oS in the catch and the depletion of the beds. The system we have adopted heretofore, has been to shorten the season. At one time the season extended from September to June. There was no objection to catching oysters in winter. The season has been shortened until at the present time it extends only from the'first of October until the end of November, only two months in which oysters can be caught. The department is alive to the fact that the oyster beds are being depleted, and they adopt the only means they have in their hands to prevent this, by continually shortening the season and occasionally closing up the beds. That, however, is a clumsy and unscientific method.
Before going on to discuss that, I wish for a moment to refer to the subject of the destruction of our beds, and in that connection I wish to read another extract from Mr. Moore on the destruction of natural beds, the causes and the remedies. He says:-
Until a comparatively recent date our supply of oysters was drawn almost entirely from the natural beds, which were originally so vast that it was a common saying that they were inexhaustible. The fallacy of this view lias been abundantly proven, and wherever reliance has been placed upon natural beds solely there has been a decreasing supply to meet an increasing demand. Many causes have been cited to account for the decrease in the productiveness of the oyster-beds, but where-ever unprejudiced investigation has been brought to bear upon the subject, the verdict has always been that the fishing upon the beds has outgrown their fecundity.
# * # # # # # *
Numerous as are the perils which beset them under these natural surroundings, they have, upon the whole, found the conditions favourable for their maintenance and increase until civilized man began his systematic attacks.
********
Over-fishing is the cause of the depletion of our oyster-beds and it produces its damaging effect in several ways:-
1.	It removes the adult oysters, which are either spawning or are capable of spawning, and thereby reduces the reproductive power of the bed as a whole.
2.	It removes the shells, and. therefore decreases the available points of attachment of the spawn. When the oysters are not culled on the beds this effect is aggravated by the removal of the dead shells.
3.	That any young oysters attached to the shells of the adults are removed from the beds, and as it is impracticable in many cases to detach them, they are of necessity destroyed.
4.	The quantity of oysters taken and destroyed from the several Tauses mentioned is greater than that which is permitted to annually grow up to take their places.
That is the lesson they have learned in

the United States, and that is what we are finding to be the case in our own country. I said a moment ago that the system which the department is compelled to adopt is an unscientific one, that is, limiting the supply and shortening the season. On this point I will also quote from Mr. Moore, who is a recognized authority:
The dictates of sound economies require that no effort be made to restrict the demand until it can be shown that efforts to increase the supply are futile. A growing demand for a product is the most trustworthy indication of an industry's prosperity, and the only rational manner is which to bring the supply and demand into equilibrium is to increase the former. Only after a failure of all efforts to save the supply from total extinction should a restriction be placed upon the demand.
The close season has been a favourite measure in protective legislation, as it ba.s been in most legislation looking to the perpetuation of game and fish. It is usual to fix the close season during the spawning months, upon the theory that the reproductive act should be allowed to proceed unmolested. It really matters but little whether the oyster is taken during the season of spawning or a month or two before; the effect upon the fishery is the same, as in either case the bed is deprived of an individual capable of reproducing its kind. The only effect of a close season, whenever occurring, is to reduce the time during which the oyster is subject to attack from the oystermen. Even this is of little avail with the sedentary oyster, for it is possible for 365 men, fishing ten days to as effectually clean up a bed as can be done by 10 men fishing throughout the year. This has been found to be the practical result of a close season in some places; the first few days of the fishing removing so many oysters as to make it unprofitable to work the beds during the rest ol the year.
It may become necessary in some parts of this country, as in Europe, to reserve the natural beds for the production of seed. Such a reservation would naturally excite the most strenuous opposition of the oyster-men; but should the industry ever be reduced to the desperate condition at one time round in France, correspondingly desperate remedies must be invoked.
Vast as are our oyster beds, but a small portion of the bottom available for the growth of this mollusk has been utilized by nature. This has arisen from the fact that in many cases where the other conditions are favourable the bottom is of such a character as to prevent the attachment of the young though perfectly adapted to the rapid Growth of the adult. If then the spat be caught on planted cultch, or partially grown oysters he placed upon such bottoms, the difficulty is overcome and nature has been assisted to the degree necessary and all or some of the conditions mentioned above are more or less completely fulfilled; the first by increasing the number of adult oysters in any region" and by their closer aggregation; the second, by the process of preparing the ground and sowing the shells; the third, by the use of
seed from regions less favourable to its maturing; the fourth, from the greater care with which a bed under private ownership will he watched and guarded, and the fifth by the very act of planting upon virgin or depleted bottom.
Then again I wish to quote from the Forest, Fish arid Game Commission Bulletin for the State of New York, 1905, as to limiting the supply:
In view of the increasing demand for shellfish, there has been a tendency to adopt measures for limiting the supply. For instance, there has been legislation by means of which close seasons have been established, or the size of the shellfish that may he taken limited, etc., the idea apparently being to conserve the supply. But would it not be better to increase the supply by encouraging the planters to cultivate the many thousands of acres in the State available for this purpose.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I think I have said enough and quoted enough to show you how rapidly our formerly invaluable beds are passing out of existence, and I think perhaps I have given enough information to arouse an interest on the part of the House. Let me summarize. First, let me ask: What are we going to do about it? We have the best oysters in the world; we have the barren ground, the bottoms, the food conditions, the brackish water, we have the reputation, we have the market, and we have an ever increasing demand, and an ever decreasing supply. What are we going to do about it? Now, I wish to suggest some remedies. One remedy which I think is absolutely necessary has been tried elsewhere, and has been invariably successful, that is, private culture and private cultivation. I have already referred to what has been done in France-I took that somewhat out of its order, because I wished to keep it separate. But I have taken a good deal of trouble to get information from various places as to what has been done in this matter. I find that not only has there been cultivation in France for the last 50 or 60 years, and cultivation in England, but other countries which have oysters have adopted the same system. We can learn many lessons from our friends the Japanese, and one lesson is in regard to oyster culture. The Japanese are skilled in systematic oyster culture. They have been engaged in oyster culture and oyster cultivation for hundreds of years. They are far ahead of us in point of time, either in Canada or the United States. Of course, the conditions in Japan are somewhat different from our conditions. The Japanese have three kinds of oysters. Their inland sea is a noted place for oysters as well as other fish. They have a small oyster the meat of which is about the size of a ten cent piece, and which grows in



enormous quantities. It adheres to the rocks and they open it on the spot. They have another oyster which is their oyster of-com-merce, something about the size of a Blue-point, and which is grown in great quantities in their inland sea, as well as in other Japanese waters. There is a third oyster to which I wish to refer, that is an oyster which grows in deep water and a small commercial oyster which grows in water where there is no frost. Oysters will grow on a bottom between the rise and the f-all of the tide, and they will grow there in great quantities. This oyster I refer to grows on bare ground between the tides,
, in a couple of fathoms of water, while there is a larger one which grows in five or six fathoms of water, and which weighs sometimes five or six pounds. This oyster I think might be transplanted to our Pacific coast, and its cultivation undertaken as an experiment. Now, I wish to quote from a report on Japanese oyster culture by Mr. Dean, the commissioner sent by the United States to investigate. This report is reproduced from the United States Pish Commission Bulletin of 1902, published in Washington in 1903:
Mr. Dean in his report on the Japanese oyster culture says :
While these European methods are applicable on our Atlantic coast, it still remains to be determined whether they include the best that could Ire employed along the Pacific, should artificial oyster-culture he here attempted. For in these waters different conditions have produced oysters which differ widely from those of the north Atlantic. The Pacific culturist may therefore feel a more lively interest in the oysters of Japan, for not merely are they closer akin to his own, in structure and in habitat, and therefore more readily acelimatabie, but they are larger, better' shaped, and certainly of greater value, commercially speaking, than the local product, Ostrea-Californiea. Moreover, the Japanese oysters have long been cultivated, and with great success. Indeed, by some experts the Japanese methods have been commended as the simplest and most practicable of all forms of ' artificial ' oyster culture, and thus of possible interest in somewhat broader lines.
For the rest, Japanese oyster-culture proved to be worthy of careful study, not only for its merits, but because of the suggestions it affords for cultural experiments. One may frankly doubt whether it can at once be employed profitably-for example, at many points on the Oregon coast-in view of the expense for labour which it entails, but I believe that there is a reasonable chance that it could be made profitable if employed in a favourable locality. In any event, so far as the Pacific coast is concerned, the Japanese methods are the most practicable, and experiments with them could be made readily and at little ex-[DOT]pense, and would1 soon demonstrate whether artificial oyster-culture can here be employed commercially.
The Japanese industry is largely seated along the north shore of the inland sea near Mr. WARBURTON.
Diroshino, in the gulf-like sea of Ski, famous for its oysters. From what period, indeed, this oyster culture has been carried on is not known accurately, but from its present condition it is evidently the product of centuries. As early as 1708 records show that concessions at Asalia were granted to an oyster company of to oyster companies of Aki for storage of their output pending the final marketing.
Regarding the origin of the oyster-culture in this region, I may here quote a paragraph from a tract on fishery matters, published by Hirosliima-Iven.
In ancient nimes, a certain shell fish, tapes, were gathered in great numbers on the flats of Aki; and while awaiting their shipment to market the fisher people came to keep them in shallow water inclosures, the fences of which they formed of bamboo stalks. The discovery was then made that the brushy fences became encrusted with young oysters, and thus it soon became evident that under certain conditions and at certain places it would be more profitable to plant bamboo and to cultivate oysters than to continue the tapes industry. This was the first instance, it is said, that bamboo collectors, or ' sbibi J were employed in oyster-culture/
Then he speaks of the three kinds of oysters to which I have referred. In the United States great attention has been given to oyster culture and in 'Connecticut they seem to understand more about the business than elsewhere. At the risk of wearying the House I wish to refer to the experience in Louisiana which illustrates in a wonderful way what can be done by scientific and careful work in this matter.
I may say that the conditions in Louisiana are not similar' to our conditions, because there they have neither frost nor ice and the water being warmer the oysters come to maturity quicker. In Canada the commercial age of an oyster is four years while probably in Louisiana it would be about half that. In 1898 and 1899 the government had a recognizance made of the oyster 'beds. They saw that there were large tracts of ground where no oysters were being raised, and it was considered that this ground might be made available for oyster culture, and the United States Fishery Bureau made an investigation and report. Acting upon that report, in 1902 the state of Louisiana took the matter up. In Louisiana they seemed to have a peculiar form of government inasmuch as the state and certain parishes- the latter no doubt a relic of the French regime-had joint interests in these grounds, and because of that condition it became rather difficult to get proper data.
I quote from ' Oyster Culture and experiments and investigations in Louisiana s-* 1910 :
By n. F. Moore and T. E. B. Pope:
Page i- After several years of agitation and discussion, the legislature in 1902 passed a general oyster law based on the recommendations of that report. The law was materi-

ally amended in 1904 and 1906, and as it now stands on the statute-books, it embraces practically in their entirety those recommendations and suggestions.
The effects of the law were almost immediately apparent in the growth of the oyster industry and the increase which it contributed to the state revenues. Prior to its passage jurisdiction over the oyster bottoms was lodged solely in the police juries of the several coastal parishes, with the result that the administration of the laws was contradictory and ineffective. The potential wealth lying concealed beneath the tide waters of the state was not appreciated and the oyster industry was neither protected nor fostered. ********
The fundamental feature of the new law was the creation of a state commission, having sole jurisdiction in oyster and cognate matters, over the entire coast, insuring consistency and uniformity of administration, and endowed with ample police powers to make effective the law and regulations which it authorizes. The larger resources of the state permit the employment of boats capable of policing the beds during the bad weather of the oyster season, requiring the oystermen to observe the cull laws and other essential regulations which, under the older regime were disregarded with impunity.
The next most important feature of the new legislation was the passage of consistent and reasonable provisions for the encouragement and regulation of oyster culture. For those who comply with reasonable requirements this provides, in lieu of the former uncertainty, an assured tenure of sufficient duration to prove attractive to prospective oyster culturists, and while the restriction on the acreage (1,000 acres) that may be allotted to any one person is such as to prevent the establishment of a monopoly of the best grounds, it does not prevent the acquisition of an area sufficient to satisfy the reasonable requirements of a considerable corporation. The rental is $1 per acre for the first fifteen years of the term of the lease and $2 per acre for the succeeding ten years, and in addition there is a tax of 3 cents per barrel (3| bushels) on all oysters marketed, whether from the natural reefs or planted beds.
Partly on account of the unusually favourable natural conditions under which the oyster industry is conducted in Louisiana, but largely by reason of the protection which the laws accord to the natural beds and the encouragement which they extend to oyster culture, the oyster fishery of the state has made extraordinary progress since the establishment of the commission. This is illustrated in the following table:-



PRODUCTION OF OYSTERS IN LOUISIANA IN RECENT YEARS.

[Stage Direction]
Year.	Product. Increase per
annum.
Bushels Per cent.
1897	
959,190	..1902	
1,198,413	51903	
1,534,000	281904	
1,620,576	61905	
2,187,000	351906	-. 2,486,256	141907	
3,035,370	221908	about 3,600,000 about 19244	*
In the five years preceding the enactment of the first oyster law the increase in the production, which was mainly from the natural beds, was 20 per cent, while in the first five years following the passage of the Act, and after it had been improved and amended, the increase was 154 per cent.
* # # #

The increase between 1902 and 1903 cannot be definitely accounted for and may possibly be due to a difference in the method of gathering the statistics, but from 1904 onward the increases are in part due to the fostering of new oyster houses and the care of the natural beds, but particularly to the fact that the private oyster bottoms were coming into productiveness. The natural beds of the state still produce in quantity more than the., planted beds, but the disparity is yearly becoming less, and in 1908 the value of oysters marketed from planted grounds slightly exceeded that of those derived from the natural beds. The quantity produced (i.e., from the planted beds) exceeded the whole product of the state at the time of the investigation of 1898, and almost equalled the yield from all sources in 1902 when the first comprehensive oyster law was enacted.
The increase in the area of bottoms under leasehold since the enactment of the present laws has been astonishing. The exact area of the leased bottoms of the state at the time of investigation in 1898 cannot be stated, but in Terrebonne parish there were then on record 32 leases, aggregating 160 acres. Ten years later, March, 1908, after the new laws had been in force but six years, there were operative in that parish 411 leases, aggregating 5,803 acres. In 1898 the state derived from its oyster beds in Terrebonne parish not over $80, and the parish not exceeding an equal amount. In 1908 the gross income of the state from the same waters was about $8,900.
From 1885 to 1902, under the parish administration of the oyster fishery, but 521 leases, covering 2,820 seres, had been executed in the entire state and many of them had lapsed at the latter date. In March, 1908, there were in the state 1,692 effective leases, covering 22,135 acres of bottom.
It is interesting to note that although the state permits one person or corporation to lease a maximum of 1,000 acres, the average leasehold at the present time is but 13 acres. There is apparently no tendency to acquire a monopoly, which is so much feared by opponents of oyster culture, and which several leases of from 500 to 1,000 acres have been granted, most of the holdings are in 10-acre parcels leased mainly by persons formerly working in the natural beds.
There is no doubt that the average size of the leased beds will increase. The oysterplanting industry of the state is as yet, in large measure, in the more primitive stage. Seed oysters from the natural beds are laid down for a year or less and a small acreage suffices for a considerable product. The inevitable necessity of changing this method to that of planting cultch is beginning to make itself felt, and as under the latter system the oysters will probably be left at least two years
[Stage Direction]
on the bottom, the requirement of larger holding will assert itself.
If the oyster industry of the state is to continue to expand in the future as in the past, the sooner this change in methods of culture is established the better for all concerned. Carrying the oysters from crowded natural reefs and bedding them for a few months on private grounds where the conditions are better, produces a superior oyster and undoubtedly saves many that would die in the struggle for existence under natural conditions. In that way, properly conducted, transplanting increases both the volume and the value of the oyster product, but the area of the natural beds is fixed as to its maximum, and their ultimate productive capacity is correspondingly fixed. They can, as a whole, produce but a more or less definite maximum quantity of oysters, and experience in other places has shown that this maximum is soon reached in the development of the fishery, and that thereafter the productiveness of the beds decreases by reason of the extensive fishery which the demands of the markets induce. The natural beds inevitably tend to depletion despite all efforts at their protection.
#**#####
In Terrebonne parish. ... in 1906 and 1907, certain reefs highly productive in 1898 were depleted and barren, mainly as a result of overfishing.
Whereas at the time of the investigation of 1898 practically all oysters from this parish came directly from the natural reefs, it is stated that the greater part of the product now comes from the planted beds. Most of this product, however, has its prime source in the natural beds, whose oysters are transplanted or bedded for a year or less in the private grounds. By this method of planting the drain on the natural beds is maintained or even accelerated under the present system of granting permits to take unculled oysters for planting purposes.
Considering the short time (this report was made in 1908), that good laws and good methods had been in force only six years, I think that the example of Louisiana is a most instructive and valuable one.
Coming this way and take up some of the other states, we find that in the state of New York also very great attention has been given to oyster culture and oyster planting. There are something like 30,000 acres of planted beds in New York waters from which they reap a ver_y large harvest. There have been long disputes between the states of Connecticut and New York with regard to the seed beds, but I think their troubles in that respect have been satisfactorily arranged. I quote from the Forest, Fish and Game Commission's bulletin state of New York, for 1905, at page 5:-
It is within a comparatively few years that this unique (oyster) style of farming has had its growth and development until now many thousands of acres of land under water have been carefully surveyed and the boundaries marked by buoys and stakes. Such lots or tracts are held by the oyster planters Mr. WAR-BURTON.
by virtue of grants or leases from the state or other owner. . . . Upwards of 30,000 acres in New York state waters have been granted by the state for shellfish cultivation.
The following figures are presented as being as nearly accurate as may be obtained, the totals rather understating the real quantities, as no account has been made of oysters consumed in the localities of the beds where they are grown:-

[Stage Direction]
Transportation lines..
Market vessels	
Market wagons	
..2,402,060 bush. ..2,880,000 "
.. 800,000 "
Grand total	6,082,060	"
At $1.25 per bushel, value=$7,603,575.
More oysters than we have taken off our great beds since confederation, and if we cultivated our beds as they do, there is no reason why we should not take many million bushels off them and their value would be very much greater per barrel. To illustrate the business by localities in New York, I again quote:-
Long Island Sound and adjacent bays- Estimated yield, 1,180,000 bushels; total acres cultivated, 5,856.
Jamaica bay-Marketed during the year, about 560,000 bushels; total acres cultivated. 146,058.	.
Princess and Raritan bays-Marketed during the year over 890,000 bushels; total acres cultivated, 1,554.
Peconic bay and vicinity-Produced, about
600.000	bushels; total acres cultivated, 1,500. Great South bay-Estimated production,
780.000	bushels (bluepoints); total acres cultivated, 1,426.
It is from Great South bay that the Blue-points come. You will observe from the smallness of the acreage and the greiit output what an enormous crop can be gathered from a small farm. I quote again from the report of the Forest and Game Commission of New York:-
The- state of New York, years ago, adopted a policy calculated to foster and encourage this industry which, with the threatened exhaustion of the natural beds of oysters and clams, bid fair to continue in but a languishing condition. The result of this system was at once apparent, and so rapidly did the business respond that at a net outlay of little more than $5,000 per annum from the state treasury, a delicious food product valued at many millions of dollars is annually gained for the entire people and is supplying an excellent and cheap item of diet at a time when all other food stuff have materially enhanced in price to the consumer. It is one great industry which has not been taken over by a trust, though many attempts have been made to control it, with the result that never have oysters been cheaper than at the present time.
Take the question of oyster cultivation. In the state of Connecticut the conditions

are considerably more difficult than further south, but the business is managed better. The conditions in that state perhaps more nearly correspond with our own. I do not wish to transgress further on the patience of the House, but I would ask permission to read some reports from that state. On page 6 of the report of the Shell Fish Commission of that state, and dated 1906, I find the following:-	.
It is now about twenty-five years since the establishment of the .present system of laws governing the shell fish business in the state of Connecticut, and during that time there has been a constant improvement in the system, a continual re-adjustment through the knowledge gained by experience and a re-adaptation to the changing conditions, which conditions have advanced also, as the progressive and enterprising powers improved their apparatus and their methods. The basic principles are the same but many changes and re-adjustments have been made. During that period also the business has developed enormously, and it has become to be one of the important industries of the state. Other states whose waters afford even greater facilities for the growth and development of the oyster business, but in which it has been allowed to be carried on by the antiquated and inadequate methods of the past, have watched the development of the industry in Connecticut and have sought to learn of her improved system of state management. The laws of the state governing the cultivation of this shell fish have been sent to every state in the union which has any considerable shell fish interests, and many of them have been incorporated into their own laws.
Among the most recent of the states to adopt the new system and to find a part of the Connecticut methods of and advantage is Maryland. While she looks upon her oyster grounds as a source of revenue to the state, as has always been her view, she still finds many of the Connecticut laws agreeable to her purpose, and she has recently constituted a shell fish commission which has charge of the management of her shell fish interests and the administration of her laws.
In May 1906, several members and other officers of this newly constituted commission visited Connecticut to see and study our system and certainly the encomiums passed by these officials, and they were scientific men and to a large extent experts, was something to rejoice the hearts of Connecticut men connected with the industry, officially and in a business way, who had laboured diligently and continually for many years to bring the system of Connecticut's laws and usages into a practical and satisfactory condition.
Dr. Caswell Graves, one of the commissioners, says:-
The state of Connecticut has the best system of organized oyster culture in the world.
Talking about the area of lands cultivated he tells us:-
The commission also was called upon by Mr. H. C. Rowe, who is the largest oyster grower in the state. Mr. Rowe gave the visitors some valuable suggestions which will be used to advantage. Sir. Rowe cultivates about 11,090 acres of beds and has been in the oyster business over thirty-six years. He said:-
I have been in the business for many years but I learn something new every day. When I started here the volume of trade was probably one twentieth of what it is to-day. The oyster is very uncertain at times. There is no rule governing its cultivation. It is affected by many conditions. Some oysters will flourish on one bottom and practically die out on another. At the present time we have about 300,000 bushels of shells at our place which we are preparing to distribute over the bottoms of the grounds held by us.
Dr. Graves, of Maryland, again says:-
We have learned from reliable sources that the oyster industry in Connecticut has increased tenfold since the establishment of the present planting system. The volume of business has increased from not more than $500,000 to about $5,000,000 annually. The secret of the great success of the Connecticut planter seems to me to rest upon his adherence to a well-ordered system based upon careful observations of the conditions governing the growth and propagation of the oyster, and the fact that he has been willing to give the work his entire time and thought. He knows exactly when and where and how to plant his shell or gravel in order to get the best catch of young oysters. He knows that to get the best results with his oysters, he must transplant them one or more times, and he knows when and where to transplant. In handling the oysters, whether in transplanting or in marketing, he does it with great economy of time and labour. Success in this state has been attained in the face of obstacles of which the Maryland oyster men know nothing and on grounds less adapted to oyster culture than those of the Chesapeake.
Judge Mathewson, who for a number of years was connected with the state hoard of shell fish commissioners, in speaking of the best methods to be adopted in operating the Hayman Bill in Maryland, said:-
We have in Connecticut 8,000 acres of natural oyster beds. The trouble which we encountered was in defining these beds and drawing the distinction between the natural beds and barren bottoms. I understand that the same problems confront the Maryland commission and from the same cause. When however we established the line, our troubles were over. The supreme court of this state rendered a decision confirming the boundaries of the natural oyster beds which had been defined by the legislature; and as soon as the exact boundary lines were established the rest was easy. Your Maryland commission will make its task as easy if it will definitely, finally and resolutely fix the boundaries of the natural beds.
After we had established these boundaries, the laying out of the barren lands became an easy task. The planters took up the land that was absolutely worthless and have ' transformed it into valuable oyster beds.
[Stage Direction]
I should like to give more quotations regarding the condition in Connecticut, but have already taken up too much time. The state of Virginia also took up this matter with some very considerable success. There, for many years, the beds were looked upon *as every one's property, and were largely depleted, but they have mended matters since. They do not carry on their business in Virginia as well as do the people in Connecticut, but still they are making many improvements, for which they have excellent opportunities. I have here the report of the state board of fisheries from October, 1905, to October, 1906, and I find in it the following:-
The great extent of our oyster area on the one hand, and our small navy and the insufficient amount for its support on the other, are quite out of proportion. Notwithstanding this, and that reduction of the state tax from 40 cents to 35 cents affects the revenues from planted oysters and shells, the net results to the state by management of its fish and oyster affairs are increasing yearly. The collections for the year amounted to $74,623.78, exceeding those of last year by $3,207.21, and is much in excess of any year previous, producing a net profit to the state for the past year of $49,123.46.
The co-operation of planters and tongers, particularly on our ocean side fpr protection of the public grounds and to prevent stealing from the planting grounds has been urged by your hoard, and favourable results have been seen in this direction. It is the hoard's purpose to increase the police day patrol on the sea side. There has been a marked increase in shell planting on the sea side, and that section is offering greater promise for the propagation of seed than any other in the state.
That refers to the necessity for protection in the state. I have not made any reference to experiments in the cultivation of oysters in our own waters although there have been a few. They are, however, very few. The great trouble has been that under the present state of the law, there is divided ownership and control, arid there is not very much inducement to cultivate because you cannot get the fruit of your own labour. But I do know of one or two instances. Mr. Davies, grandfather of Sir Louis Davies, ever so many years ago, put a few baskets of oysters into the river near Charlottetown, about two miles out. He simply dumped them down in order to have some little quantity for his own use. They happened, however, to strike a favourable place, and propagated and formed quite a bed, which lasted over 50 years. The neighbours around used to get a bushel basket of oysters from this bed whenever they' wanted any. I myself, at low tide have often picked half a basket full, arid they were splendid round cup oysters. No one however, owned the ground, and unfortunately the bed became known. No one owned the ground. It unfortunately be-Mr. WARBURTON.
came known that there was a nice little lot of oysters there, and about 30 years ago, a schooner came up there and in two days cleaned the beds out, and I do not think there is an oyster to be found there to-day. Judge Pope bought 15 acres of land at freehold before confederation, and planted an oyster bed, which is flourishing at the present day. It turns out the very best oysters, and many clubs, for instance, the St. James, of Montreal, get their supplies from there. At a place called Fullerton's Marsh, not far from Charlottetown, in ticlal water, a friend of mine, Mr. Bovyer, planted a bed of oysters some years ago, and it came on very well. I myself, bought a barrel of excellent oysters from him 12 years ago. Another year I tried to get another barrel, but could not get ajry. He told me that he had got as_much as 50 barrels in one season from that bed, but the fishermen came and cleaned it out, and after that, he could not get any. In French river, New London, the same thing happened.
I wish to touch upon the question of the size of holding, because it must be evident, from what I have said, and from the extracts I have read, that the only way to preserve our oysters is to let or sell the barren ground to private individuals or corporations who will cultivate. Then the question arises what sort of title should you give, and what area of ground. The prevalent idea with our people is that one individual should not have more than five acres, I long held that view myself, but since I have devoted a considerable amount of attention to this subject, I have come to the conclusion that that view is wrong. When we have hundreds of thousands of acres available, why should we limit an individual to five acres? I do not see why we should not, as is done in Louisiana, grant a thousand acres to an indivi-dul or company, taking precautions against monopoly, though I do not see how there could be a monopoly when the area is so enormous. With regard to the size of holding, Mr. Kemp, in his evidence before the Fisheries Committee, estimated that 50 acres would be a good area for any one who wanted to go into the busi- . ness; and Mr. Kellog, whom I have already quoted, says in reference to this matter:-
On the northern coast, where states have been so educated in the matter as to have perceived the wisdom of leasing-or better still, of selling-oyster bottoms to culturists, there has been granted with the- property right, the equally sensible right to work upon the property without greater restrictions than are placed on the farmer who is allowed to cut his grain with a reaper. This seems like common sense and common justice, hut there are still those who are strongly prejudiced against the use of the dredge.
But the old conditions are fast passing.

There was too often just cause for complaint against the use of the dredge when state laws set apart some natural beds for the use of tongers only, and others for dredges. But now that any citizen, in most states, may lease or buy bottoms in deen or shallow water, to which he confines his operations, and in which lie is supposed to have the protection of the state, he should be allowed to liandlo his own crop as he chooses, so long as he injures the property of no one else by so doing.
That extract is important, not only as being the opinion of a very eminent authority upon this subject, but because it touches upon another matter on which I feel very strongly, that is, the season. I have already pointed out that under the present conditions the Department of Marine and Fisheries have only one weapon in their hands, the shortening of the season. I want to change all that. If you grant to a man a farm undeT water, which is suitable for the cultivation of oysters, you should not impose any restriction as to season upon him, because no man outside of a lunatic asylum, would think of catching oysters out of season. You might as well talk of the owner of an orchard in the Niagara peninsula gathering his fruit shortly after the blossom fell. A man who has a farm under water is not going to catch oysters during the spatting season because at that time, they are watery and not fit to eat, and he could not sell them to advantage and will not catch oysters at a time when he cannot market them. At present people are not allowed to catch oysters in winter. That is a good rule, as conditions are at present, but it would not be a good rule for a man who owned a bed under the ice, because he would not injure his bed by catching oysters at a time when it was not wise to do so.
With regard to the nature of the title, there seems to be a strong feeling among the people I have talked to that only leases of the land should be given for oyster culture. I am absolutely opposed to that principle. Landlordism in this country is an anachronism; it is not popular; the sentiment of the country is against it, and that sentiment is very strong. It may be foolish, but we know that it is sentiment that binds the British Empire together. No man is going to sink capital in land which he holds under a short lease, especially when he will get no Teturn for four or five years. But if you give a man a conditional fee to the laiyi under water, the condition being that he must work it, and not let it lie idle until it increases in value, then he can with assurance go on and expend his money -and improve it. Men investing do not always invest their capital solely with a view to their own wants. They invest for their families or for those who come after them, and if you do not expect a man to take a farm on dry ground under a short lease, I do not see why you should expect another
n to take a farm-under water on a short se. I cannot see on what principle you „,ist that a man should not have a freehold. interest in an oyster bed covered with water when you do not apply the same principle to dry land covered with wood. That is an idea which has got into the public mind, and the sooner it is abandoned the better. Mr. Kemp, in his evidence on page 17, speaking of this matter, says that in his opinion a freehold is a much better title to give. Now, Mr. Speaker, we have certain conditions to consider, and_ these the oyster planter must learn for himself. When he plants his cultch he must have a hard, clean bottom for the spat to gather upon. That is a matter also which he will soon learn, and when he has gathered his spat he must collect his plant. Now as a rule of the department you are not allowed to have in your possession any oysters smaller than a certain size. That is an excellent rule for the purpose for which it was made, but the trouble is that we have along out shores hundreds of bushels and hundreds of barrels of little oysters which go ashore in the spring and grow upon a hard rock, and in low tide you can pick them up by the basketful, little ovsters ranging from the siz' of a ten cent piece to that of a fifty cent piece. These are all killed in winter by the ice. Two or three years ago you were not allowed to pick them up, but you may do so now. Last year Mr. Venning took the trouble to have these picked up. There is no reason why they should not be nicked up and transplanted. In that connection I wish to quote from the 1 Conditions of Oyster Culture,' by Mr. Moore:
Preliminary to planting,^ the first essential is to determine whether private rights in oyster bottoms are recognized by law or countenanced by public opinion. Unless the planter is assured of exclusive ownership in I he product of his labour and enterprise, he will find more profit and peace of mind m devoting his energies to some other calling. Unless the law, backed by the public sense ot justice, makes the theft of oysters from planted grounds punishable like theft of any other kind, it will be impossible to expect success in oyster-planting. Very remarkable views obtain in some places concerning the right to property beneath the sea, and in such places the planter will find it impossible to protect his interests.
At six o'clock, House took recess.
After Recess.
House resumed at eight o'clock.
Alexander Bannerman Warburton: Mr. Speaker, at six o'clock I was discussing the question of oysters and methods of oyster culture and quoting some statistics and some reports of the work done in the United States and elsewhere to explain and illustrate the view which I was presenting. I pointed out

that, in my opinion, iUwas desirable to give freehold estate in oyster farms or oyster grounds. I shall touch upon that again bifore I have finished.
Now, Mr. Speaker, let me say that if we adopt the system which 1 suggest, that is the granting of limits of varying sizes -small to those who require small . ones, larger to those who require larger ones-it will be a great assistance to the oyster fishermen. Let the labourer have a small piece of ground if he wants it, let men of capital have a larger piece of ground if they can put their capital into it and work it because there is plenty of barren ground. We want as much as possible of it worked. There is an unlimited market. The market is to be found everywhere. You might sell at the present day fifty bushels of oysters for every bushel we turn out in Prince Edward Island. I have also pointed out how the output is falling off and how our beds are being depleted; in fact, our oyster is a vanishing institution unless some means are taken within a reasonable distance of time to prevent its disappearing altogether, because once it disappears, it cannot be replaced. In the event of the formation of farms of oyster ground covered with water, as I have suggested, an industry will be created the advantages of which to the fishermen and working men will be of vast importance. At the present time the fisherman has a precarious method of making a livelihood for about two months in the year, but as soon as those two months are over he is out of _ employment and has to look for something else because there is no work in preparing for next year. There is nothing to be done when the oyster fishery is over. There are no barrels or boxes to make, no beds to be prepared and nothing to be done. But, if the system that I suggest, and which is practised so extensively in the United States, were adopted, and if we are to judge from the illustrations elsewhere, the industry would be developed and developed very rapidly, and in its development it would afford employment not only for the man who does the actual labour of fishing the oysters, but there would be employment all the year round for him and for others in preparing annually the oyster beds, because the oyster beds require preparation. You may find hard bottom where no preparation is required, but if you find soft bottom you must make it hard ; you must put on gravel or some other hard material so that the oyster will find some cultch. A- most excellent cultch is old tin cans. Perhaps they are the best of all because they offer to the oyster a hard clean surface, the corroding action of the salt water dissolves the tin can allowing the oyster, after being formed to get free from the cultch. The difficulty is to detach the young oyster from the


Alexander Bannerman Warburton: cultch and tin cans are most excellent for that purpose. Tiles are also used. Anything hard and clean will answer the purpose, but the surface must be clean or the young oyster will not adhere to a slimy surface. With us in Prince Edward Island the currents of water keep the beds fairly clean and the young oysters attach themselves to old shells and anything they come across. Sometimes people pick up a pipe covered with oysters and they are sometimes attached to an old boot or a kettle. Any hard, clean surface will collect them. Oyster shells are used most extensively in the United States. This system would also afford employment at times when oysters are not fit to be caught by the men. You would require in increasing quantities, barrels, or boxes, or whatever vessel you wished to put the oysters up in and the manufacturer of these receptacles will afford employment throughout the year. Then, employment will be given from one season to the other and the fishermen, instead of making a precarious livelihood for two months of the year will be assured a reasonable amount of employment for the whole year. If this system were adopted and oyster culture were practised in the maritime nrov-inces there is no doubt that what would happen would be just what has happened elsewhere-that the growth would be very great and that the output of oysters would increase so that in three or four years time, instead of having 20,000 or 30,000 barrels of oysters, as we have now from the whole of the oyster beds of Canada, we would have 200,000 or 300,000 barrels. Judging by the results we have in other places, with our magnificent beds and our magnificent oysters, and with freedom from the natural enemies of the oyster which we enjoy and which the people of the United States do not enjoy, there is no doubt whatever that in ten or fifteen years time we will be, and we ought to be. turning out, instead of a paltry 80,000 or 90,000 bushels a year, 8,000,000 or 10,000,000 bushels. That has happened elsewhere and it will happen with us. The Canadian, when once you set him to work, is a better man than any other man, and when you give him a chance he will' produce better results.
There is no doubt that there are difficulties in the way. I have been pointing out the conditions in so far as I know them here and elsewhere and I have tried to indicate that I wish to break down and put an end to some of the conditions which now exist. The question of construction comes up. What are you going to do to meet it? That, of course, is a difficult question. There are two things that are absolutely necessary to begin with. 'You have to do away with the dual control. At the present time the sale of the bottoms of the oyster beds is in the hands of the provincial government. The control and regulation and

everything about them are in the hands oi the Department of Marine and Fisheries, and while you lease from the local government a piece of land you cannot work it without the consent of the Dominion government. It is not the fault of the local or of the Dominion government. The question has been in existence since confederation. The question incidentally cropped up and it had to be settled one way or the other. You have this divided ownership and control and it is not necessary for me to tell you that a dual control is always a bad control, I would suggest that measures be taken, if possible, to get the interest of the provincial governments transferred to the Department of Marine and Fisheries so as to put the whole business of control and ownership into one set of hands. There may be difficulty about that. I know that the provincial governments look upon these oyster, beds as being of very considerable value. They are of very great potential value but they are not now to the provincial governments of any value whatever because they can get nothing out of them.
They may get a few dollars for licenses, leasehold patches of land are not much use when they get them, but practically speaking they get nothing out of them and they are of no present value, although they are of great potential value. What I would suggest, and it is only my suggestion, is that the Dominion government should take over all the provincial rights as I have pointed out and as a recompense allow the provincial governments a small royalty upon the oysters caught in the planted beds. That would have its advantages in more than one way. To begin with people who are investing their money in building up beds, and planting beds would not be called upon to pay any royalty or tax until such time as their beds are reproductive and their capital is beginning to yield some return. That would be for the first three or four years, because no return could be expected for that period. After three or four years, I consider the return would be a very large one, and then they could pay a royalty, say ten cents a bushel, which would yield a large and ever increasing income to the provincial governments; The Dominion government could exact fees or licenses for fishing, &c.; but even suppose the Dominion government got nothing whatever out of it, they would be doing as they are doing in many directions, they would be spending money in order to develop a great industry from which they would get no immediate and direct return, although the indirect return would be great because, giving an enormous increase of this valuable industry, hundreds of thousands of dollars would be kept in the country which now go out and many many hundreds of
thousands of dollars would come into the country from the United States, and elsewhere from people who would prefer to get our good oysters rather than the inferior ones which they get in other places. The result would be that our people would be better able to buy and pay mofe money into the pockets of the Minister of Customs. That is one of those things on which the government would be quite justified in spending money without direct return, just as in the case of canals and other public works. If some such arrangement could be come to, then the question would be in a fair way of solution, and I do not see any insuperable difficulties in bringing it about. I wish to again emphasize my opinion that I would go in for freeholds and not for leaseholds.
I shall also refer briefly to the oyster fisheries on the Pacific coast. I have not that personal knowledge of the Pacific coast which I would like to have, or that intimate knowledge of the conditions that I have in relation to some parts of the Atlantic coast, but this problem is one which interests the Pacific coast as well as the Atlantic. Several efforts have been made to establish oyster beds in British Columbia by taking oysters from Prince Edward Island and other places and planting them on the Pacific coast with an idea of establishing beds where the oysters would reproduce themselves, and eventually supply the people out there with oysters which would have become native, of which the spat would be produced there and adhere to the rock, or whatever else it might grow on. I know there is an oyster in British Columbia, but I understand it is small and is not considered of much importance by the people of that province. On the Pacific coast of the United States they have large oyster beds which are supplied by taking the small seed oysters from the Atlantic coast and planting them in the Pacific, and I think the same thing would apply to a greater extent to British Columbia. The waters there are cold, as they flow from the mouths of the great rivers and mix with the salt water, producing the brackish water which is essential to the growth of the young oysters, the temperature of the water is too low for the eastern oyster to reproduce itself. They have tried to secure reproduction in San Francisco bay, and other places in California with great lack of success. In one or two places in San Francisco bay where very shallow water is exposed to the sun, some little reproduction has gone on, but so little that it is hardly worth considering. But our American friends carry on a very extensive business in cultivating oysters on the Pacific coast; they take these seed oysters, from a quarter of an inch to an inch and a quarter in diameter, across from the Atlantic

to the Pacific coast and plant them there, transferring in this way as many as 100 carloads in a year. This has developed into a large and important industry. The oysters grow, although they will not reproduce. My impression is that the same will apply to British Columbia. The oyster in the Pacific is not of the same species as our oyster, and when I was speaking of the oyster industry in Japan it struck me that in the next experiment in cultivating oysters in British Columbia, instead of taking oysters from the Atlantic side which will not flourish in water below the temperatures I have mentioned, some of these deep water oysters might be brought from Japan in order to see if they would succeed. That experiment might be well worth making in the interests of British Columbia. It would be of no use to bring a barrel or two of oysters, 50 or 100 barrels would have to be brought, and that would be a mere bagatelle. If the time ever comes when we can get oyster cultivation, and oyster culture well under wray on the Atlantic coast, we may be able to carry on a profitable trade in the seed oyster as is done between the Atlantic states, and the Pacific states to-day. This might become a very valuable trade because with all their innumerable natural resources in British Columbia, this one of the oyster is not of much consequence to-day.
I thought this subject of such importance that I should bring it before this House and the country in order, if possible, to arouse an interest in it, so that a great oyster industry might be established which would bring wealth to the maritime provinces, and to the balance of Canada the great luxury of a cheap article of food within the reach of all people from ocean to ocean.
In my motion, I made a brief reference to three other shell fish, clams, quahaugs and scallops. While the Americans have devoted much attention to the cultivation of the oyster, they have not devoted any attention, as far as I know, to clams, quahaugs and scallops, which are very valuable articles of food and are becoming more so every year. Experiments have shown that there is no reason why clam culture and quahaug culture might not be carried on as successfully as oyster culture. The scallops are of much greater commercial value than the oysters; the manner in which it is sent to the market makes it an easy product to transport, and I am told that in the American market they sell as high as $5 a gallon, which is, of course, greatly in excess of the price of oysters. However, my own preference is for an oyster, if it is a good one.


Mr. TAYLOR.: (Leeds.) Like those you gave us the other night.


Alexander Bannerman Warburton: It was thought at one time that there was only one place in Mr. WARBURTON.
Canada where scallops could be obtained, namely in Lunenberg, N.S., although they are taken all along the American coast, down as' far as Mexico I think. This summer, however, a friend of mine discovered scallop beds off the coast of Prince Edward Island, and he brought in about a barrel and a half of these valuable shell fish. I have no doubt whatever that scallops can be found in abundance around the coast of Prince Edward Island, if the people only knew where they are to be found, and, owing to their very great value as a commercial fish, they are worth looking after. I have no doubt in my own mind, from the information which came to me this summer, that scallops caii be found' all along the Prince Edward_Island coast, the coast of Cape Breton, and probably down to the International boundary line. The scallop flourishes in deeper and saltier water than does the oyster and it has a much shorter life. The_ highest commercial value of the scallop is when it is one and a half years old, and my information leads me to think that it does not live more than 26 or 27 months. It is a fish of very fast growth and is a delicious article of food. So far as I knew, the culture of clams and scallops and quahaugs has not yet been taken up practically by the United States, but I see that their scientists are pointing out that the waters of the United States are being depleted of these fish and that if they are to be preserved, some means must be taken to protect them. The quahaug is a fish of great commercial value in the United States, and I have noticed that some of them are offered for sale here in Ottawa. However, I put the protection and development of the oyster industry far above all others, and I have three suggestions to offer in the line of this protection:	The first essential is to take over
the land, and put it all in one hand; the second is the tenure which you give to the buyers of the property, and the third is to have a thorough and exhaustive survey pointing out where the natural beds are, and where the mussle mud is, that you leave for the benefit of the farmers. I would point out that although this would take some time, it is not necessary to. suspend oyster culture while you are going on with this work. It will not take long to survey the bays and rivers and you can easily keep ahead of the demands of those who want the ground. In addition to this, I consider that it would be very well worth while to employ one of the Dominion government steamers in the work of ascertaining if there are any beds of shell fish along the coast of the maritime provinces, of which at present we know nothing. I was informed this summer that at the western end of Prince Edward Island, oysters were discovered in 13 oi 14 fathoms of water which is a much greater

depth than I ever thought oysters could live in. I remembered when I heard this, that some 40 years ago, my father had told me that he had been informed by the hydrographic surveyors of the British government that they had discovered oyster beds under similar circumstances, and of course those had been lost sight of since that time. I think it would be well worth while to put an expert an board one of our own vessels furnished with proper appliances for examining the bottom of the sea, to ascertain what unknown riches we have in these waters.


Mr. A. L. FRASER.: (King's, P.E.I.) Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to go into the history of this question, because it has been so well treated of by my hon. friend (Mr. Warburton), that it requires no elaboration from me. I wish however, to say a few words in endorsation of what the hon. gentleman has stated to the House, so that I may on my own behalf, call the attention of the government and of the Department of Marine and Fisheries to the importance of this industry. In our province we have no mineral or forest wealth, but our island is encircled with a great deal of wealth in our fisheries, which have ever been a source of profitable occupation to our people. It is unnecessary to say that it is the duty of this government towards the inhabitants of my province, to give what . encouragement there can be given to the fishing industry. I am sorry to say that our oyster fishery is decreasing, a fact which is proven by the last report of the Department of Marine and Fisheries which sets out that in 1891 we exported over 41,000 barrels of oysters, while in 1901 the quantity fell to 13,000 barrels. If the Department of Marine and Fisheries were fully alive to this fact I feel that an effort would be made to stop this depletion of the oyster fisheries. In the last report of the department there is an able article written by Mr. Found, an officer of the department, from which I quote:-
What the Canadian oyster fishery is, and what it might have been under different conditions, form a subject for serious, and from many points of view painful reflection; but the possibilities for the future are so magnificent, if proper lines of procedure are adopted and followed, that the subject is one which calls for the closest and most thoughtful attention.
\
The article of Mr. Found contained in this report, is a very excellent one, and in it he quotes from Mr. W. H. Venning, one of the ablest officers the department ever had, who, writing in 1873, said:-
The simplest, wisest and most effective moans for increasing the production of oysters in New Brunswick and Nova Scotia

And I might add Prince Edward Island although it is not mentioned in the report :-
-is to lease all localities favourable to their growth, whether old beds exist there or not, on such terms as will induce' practical men to invest capital in their cultivation. This is the means adopted in other countries, and no other will in my opinion ever succeed.
One of the causes of the present depletion of the oyster industry is a matter that I think could be very well dealt with by this government. That is the question of jurisdiction between the provincial and the Dominion governments. Speaking for my own. province, I know that this is, to a great extent, the cause of the depletion. The Dominion government claims jurisdiction over the waters of the bays and rivers in the provinces while the provincial governments claim the river beds and the bottoms of rivers. Within the last few years an Act was passed to enable the provincial government to grant leases of these bottoms in the harbours and rivers where live oysters are not at present found, but the Dominion government, it seems, has the control of the granting of licenses ; so that even if one did take a lease from the provincial government for some years, another party, who had a license from the Dominion government, could fish wherever he liked in that bay or harbour. If I am mistaken I would ask the Minister of Marine and Fisheries to correct me.


Mr. BRODEUR.: On that question there is a divergence of opinion. As far as the three mile limit is concerned, the jurisdiction exists with the Dominion government ; but as regards the beds of^ rivers, the provinces have the authority, as decided by the Privy Council in 1898. I do not know that there has been any serious difficulty with regard to the beds of the rivers.


Austin Levi Fraser: That, I think, is not quite the point. The provincial governments claim that they own the bottoms of the rivers and harbours. That, I think, is conceded by the minister, but the granting of licenses to fish in these harbours and rivers is entirely under the control of the Dominion government.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: No, by the judgment of the Privy Council it was decided that the two authorities had the right to isshe licenses-both the provincial and the Dominion governments-as far as the beds of rivers are concerned.


Austin Levi Fraser: Well, there is a conflict between the two, and I should think that this government ought to have sufficient business capacity to deal with this matter in some way that will prevent the deple-

tion of the beds. I know that in Prince Edward Island the disputed jurisdiction is the cause of the non-culture at present of our oysters. Nobody will undertake the culture of oysters because he cannot tell which government has authority to deal with the matter. Even if only a tentative arrangement were arrived at, it would be very beneficial in the meantime. Let the Dominion and the provincial governments get together and settle this matter in such a way as will be beneficial for the industry.
I shall not say anything regarding the manner m which our neighbour to the south deals with this question because j^as already been exhaustively dealt with by the hon. gentleman who preceded me, (Mr. Warburton) I only wish to call attention to one fact, which seems to deserve special note, and that is the quality of oyster produced in the maritime provinces, especially in Prince Edward Island. As to quality and excellence, they are superior to any of those produced in any of the states of the union. In this report I find the following :
Let us take, for instance, Richmond or Mal-peque bay, Prince Edward Island, which has probably 3,000 acres of oyster beds. As Ion" ago as the season of 1883, boats to the number ot 150 operated there, with two men to a boat, and the average catch then made was six barrels per boat per day or three barrels per man. This heavy fishing had been going on for years before, and with increasing energy since, and yet the bay though seriously depleted, yielding pecks now where barrels were taken then, is still productive.
Notwithstanding the great drain in the bay during the past year, it is still producing the best oysters on the North American continent. As to the excellence of their quality, there can be no question. Not only have they received the highest award in the different expositions, but the prices they command are extremely high. The Malpeque is famous throughout the length and breadth of the country, and it grows in natural beds in Richmond county. These oysters bring the fishermen from $6 to $7 per barrel, whereas those produced in the state of Virginia and other states of the union do not fetch more than $1.40 per barrel. Yet the fishermen in these states make more in a day than do ours, but that is altogether due to the difference in quantity.
I do not wish to take up more time, but in closing I would again urge on the department as strongly as possible to settle this matter with the provincial governments and have the necessary steps taken to preserve our oyster beds. This is but a young country, whose population in ten years will at least be doubled ; and unless this government takes some steps now, such as I suggest, we shall, have no oys-Mr. ERASER.
ters to give future generations. The government should keep two objects in mind, to preserve and conserve this industry and also encourage this development. Protection alone is not sufficient for any industry. It should be also nursed and developed in order that it may flourish and serve the wants of the country.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: I have certainly no objection to having the papers mentioned in the motion laid upon the table of the House. We have already had papers brought down in response to similar motions in former years ; and I see that my hon. friend is simply asking that the documents not already before the House should be produced.
I must express my gratification to the hon. member for Queens, Prince Edward Island (Mr. Warburton) for having introduced this very important question and for having explained it so thoroughly.
He has done so in a speech which is a complete exposition of the oyster industry, which has been of great interest to those who have heard it, and which will be read in the future by all who take an interest in the question. Indeed, I think it would be difficult to find a better treatise on the subject of oyster culture than the one we have been favoured with this afternoon and this evening by my hon. friend from Queens. The department, I may say, is taking a very deep interest in this question. We maintain on the coast of Prince Edward Island a boat which is entirely devoted to the protection of the oyster fisheries and their improvement. We' had the good fortune also some years ago to secure the services of an expert on the subject from Great Britain in the person of Mr. Kemp, and the compliments which have been paid to that gentleman to-day are but echoes of what the department thinks of his ability and his devotion to the work he has undertaken.
It is very unfortunate that these fisheries are becoming depleted as they are to-day. My hon. friend from Queens has given some figures to show the extent of that depletion. The reports show that in the three maritime provinces of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island there has been in the last 20 years a very severe depletion. Ten years ago no less than 61,549 barrels of oysters were taken, whereas in the last fiscal year the quantity had decreased to 34,599 barrels. In the province of New Brunswick there were in 1886, 28,083 barrels taken, while last year there were only 19,340 barrels. In Prince Edward Island, in 1877 there were 20,850 barrels in 1889, the quantity increased to 41,257 barrels, and last year it was less than in 1877, 13,519 barrels. In Nova Scotia the oyster

fisheries are not very extensive. We find that in 1880 in that province 1,861 barrels were taken, in 1890, 3,013 barrels, in 1900, 1,855 and in 1910, 1,716. I may say that the department is alive to the condition of the beds, and for my part, I have tried to give this matter my most serious attention. Reference has been made to the question of jurisdiction, which for the last 10 or 12 years has prevented to a very great extent the development of the fisheries. The question of jurisdiction arose in this way. Previous to the judgment of the Privy Council in the fisheries case, all the regulations of the fisheries, not only on the sea coasts, but also in the rivers, were under the control of the federal government. The question was then raised whether the beds of the rivers were not the property of the provinces, and, if so, whether the provinces as a result of their proprietary rights, had not the power to issue licenses. The question was adjudicated upon by the Supreme Court, and afterwards, in 1898, by the Privy Council, which decided that the provinces had the right to issue licenses with regard to the fisheries which existed in the province itself, as they were the owners of the beds of rivers. The court did not go so far as to declare that the provinces were also the owners of the fish, though it went almost that far. However, the judgment is not very clear on that point. But the court did not decide one very important question affecting the oyster industry ; that is, the question of whether the bed of the sea within the three-mile * limit is under the sovereignity of the Dominion government or under the control of the provincial authorities., As every member of this House knows, that question is not so much a question of proprietary rights as a question of sovereignty, and we claim that that part of the sea is under the control of the Dominion government, and that the administration of the fisheries, with the right to issue licenses within the three-mile limit, belongs entirely to the Dominion government. This contention, I may say, has not been accepted by some of the provinces. The province of Quebec, for example, claimed that we have no jurisdiction within the three-mile limit, and that the jurisdiction, so far as ownership was concerned, was entirely in the hands of the provincial authorities ; New Brunswick also made the same contention. I may say, however, that the three provinces of Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick allowed the administration of the fisheries to remain just as it was before the judgment of the Privy Council, they did not avail themselves of the power they had to issue licenses, and that has been done by the Dominion government.
But there was a difference of opinion as
to the question of leases for oyster beds. It was contended on the part of the provinces that the leases of oyster beds within the three mile limits were under provincial jurisdiction. On the other hand, it was contended by the Dominion authorities, that fishing leases within those three mile limits were under federal jurisdiction. We had a meeting in my office about a year and a half ago with representatives of those three maritime provinces, and we tried to reach an understanding, or to arrive at a modus vivendi, pending a decision upon some stated point by the courts of the country and by the Privy Council, and we adopted a modus vivendi under which, pending a decision of the Privy Council, the Dominion authorities should issue the leases. The representatives of the three provinces reported the result of our conference to their governments, and I may say that the conference agreed to adopt the modus vivendi subject to ratification by their respective governments. I am glad to be able to announce to the House that the negotiations which have been carried out with the provincial governments have now come to a succes-ful termination, and a modus vivendi is now being drafted by the department of justice, with the concurrence of the provincial governments, under which, pending the decision of the question that is being submitted to the courts, that is, the question whether, within the three mile limit the provincial authority or the federal authority should issue licenses, this government are issuing the licenses. The provincial governments agree that if, later on, it is decided that the jurisdiction belongs to them, they will maintain the leases that we aTe granting. I think that result is absolutely satisfactory. The condition of affairs which existed before was far from satisfactory, and when a decision is reached the existing leases will continue to exist, so that those who take out the leases may be sure that they will be maintained by the Dominion government, if the Dominion government is adjudged to hold the jurisdiction, and by the provincial governments, if they are adjudged to. hold the jurisdiction.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What becomes of the money you get for the leases if it turns out that the provinces have the right?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: It is agreed that we will give back to the provinces the fees, of course deducting from the amount the expenses which have been incurred for the administration of the fisheries. I think that result is absolutely satisfactory to my hon. friend from Kings (Mr. Fraser), who has taken so much interest in this matter.
It is ' important that this question of authority to issue leases should be settled.

I find that at present there are only three leases in existence, a much smaller number than formerly, and those leases are annual leases. Well, we know very well that annual leases are almost valueless as regards the prospective utility of the oyster fisheries. Annual leases are almost valueless, for the reasons which have been given by my hon. friend for Queens (Mr. Warburton). It is important that those who invest money in this industry should have a certainty of holding their leases fox a certain number of years, otherwise they would be unwilling to go on and spend money upon those beds. They have to plant oysters on those beds, and it takes at least four years before they get any revenue from their seeding. Annual leases under those conditions are almost of no value, therefore it is necessary to make the leases extend for a considerable number of years. I notice that my hon. friend from Queens contends that even long leases are not sufficient, but that the properties should be given in freehold to the individual who undertakes the obligation of developing those oyster beds. Well, that is a question worthy of consideration, and certainly the views of the hon. gentleman are entitled to consideration, seeing that he has given so much attention to the subject. For my part I should feel it my duty to take the best expert advice we can get on the question, whether we should give freehold rights instead of leases. I think, perhaps, twenty year leases would be sufficient to give to the lessee the opportunity of developing the fisheries and of obtaining satisfactory financial results.
We have to-day about ten thousand acres of living beds, and they might be very largely extended. The beds we have to-day are being depleted, as I mentioned a few moments ago. We have also very extensive barren beds which might easily be cultivated, indeed I might go farther and say I am positive they could be easily cultivated. Beds which formerly contained oysters have been for a certain period of time barren,, and now they are without cultivation. I am sure that if these beds were leased to persons who would place oysters upon them and give them proper cultivation they would become more productive than some of the live beds that we have in some parts of the country. While we have to-day 10,550 acres of land which are natural beds of oysters, I am sure that by leasing those barren beds we can increase immensely the quantity of oysters which will be produced. But we must not confine ourselves simply to the cultivation of the barren beds. I may inform the House that within this last season we had some experiments made by Mr. Kemp, our oyster expert, not of barren beds, but of ordinary beds. Of course, I do Mr. BRODEUR.
not know what the result will be yet, because it will take three or four years before we can get any results as to these beds, but Mr. Kemp informs us that he expects a great deal from those beds which have been put up in ordinary places. As you are aware a number of professors of McGill, Toronto, and other universities are kind enough to devote their time to the study of marine biology and these distinguished scientists gave a great deal of their attention to the study of questions affecting the fisheries generally. Dr. Stafford, of McGill University, last year devoted himself largely and almost exclusively to the study of oyster culture. A reference to_ his work is to be found in the report which has been made by Mr. Kemp. I do not know whether the report is before the House, but it is a very interesting document.
Some references have been made to British Columbia. I may say that the results in British Columbia are very satisfactory. There the cultivation of oyster beds has taken place and the results have been such that the industry is quite flourishing to-day. It is expected that when the question is decided definitely we will probably have on the British Columbia coast a very large number of oyster beds. I may say that the question of jurisdiction has already been submitted to the Supreme Court by a reference which has been made by this government of certain stated questions. Those questions were the result of an understanding between the government of British Columbia and this government, and one of the questions which will be decided is as to whether the bed of the three mile limit is under the absolute control or jurisdiction of the provinces or of the Dominion, and whether we shall have the right, not of regulation, because the question of regulation is not in dispute at all, but to give leases within that three mile limit. This question was called at the last sitting of the Supreme Court, but it was adjourned to be considered later on.
I do not think I have very much to add except that I must express my gratification at finding that the article which has been written by Mr. Found, and which is published in our annual report, is commanding the attention and eliciting comments on the part of members of this House who have taken part in this debate. Mr. Found is certainly one of the most industrious officers we have. Though he had a great deal of work to do, he was kind enough to prepare this important article, which I think will be read by all those who take an interest in oyster culture. I am very glad to bear testimony to .the ability which Mr. Found has shown in pre paring this important report. Consequently, I simply voice the satisfaction which

has been evidenced by those who have spoken with regard to this important article of Mr. Found.
I was stating a few minutes ago that we had, some years ago, a large number of licenses or leases which had not been renewed because the lessees were more or less afraid of continuing these leases. I have the figures showing that some years ago, before the judgment of the Privy Council, we had thirty-one leases or licenses of oyster beds. Now, we have only three. That shows that the question of jurisdiction, of which I have spoken, has been certainly the case that these lessees have not been willing to take licenses or leases, but now that the question is settled, we expect that all those who take an interest in the fisheries will take the necessary steps to take leases from the department, and we will certainly do all in our power to help them and to protect the industry.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I thought that at the time the question of jurisdiction over the fisheries in inland waters was decided it was to the effect that in the_ inland waters the provinces had the right to issue licenses.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Yes.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: But that the federal government had still the right of regulation and that with respect to the Atlantic fisheries, which would include the three mile limit, the rights were solely invested in the federal parliament.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: I am sorTy to inform my hon. friend (Mr. ''Sprouie) that there was no decision with regard to the three mile limit. It may be that the provinces have the right to issue licenses or leases within the three mile limit, but unfortunately there was no decision rendered on that ' point. That is why the government of British Columbia and the federal government have come to the conclusion that in order to put an end to the uncertainty we should have the matter referred to the courts. It was^ decided by the Privy Council that the province had the right to issue licenses, but it was also decided that the Dominion government had the right to levy taxation by means of licenses or otherwise. In some of the provinces, therefore, licenses are issued by the provincial authorities, but there is nothing in the judgment of the Privy Council which debars the Dominion from issuing licenses, and of course, by that judgement, the Dominion government is the only authority which has the right to make regulations.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr. MONK (Jacques Cartier) moved:: For a copy of all correspondence between the mover and any other persons, corporations and municipal as well as other public bodies, and the Department of Railways and Canals, respecting the reconstruction, and alteration of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company's bridge across the St. Lawrence river at Luchino, P.Q.
He said: The object of this motion is to draw the attention of the government to a matter of very considerable importance to the city of Montreal and its vicinity. We, in Montreal, have not been particularly lucky in regard to the great public works erected by the government, although the island of Montreal contributes, I think, one-fourth of the national revenue and is consequently entitled to every consideration in matters which concern the development of that great commercial centre. We have for example the report of the Transportation Commission of 1904, that for a solution of the transportation problem it was absolutely essential that without delay Montreal should be made a free national port equipped at the expense of the whole Dominion. Millions of dollars have since been spent in improving that port to fit it for the immense trade which is coming there now and the still more immense trade which is destined to come, but the government has entirely failed to carry out the suggestion of its own commission to make it a free port. When we were deciding upon the construction of the National Transcontinental railway it was pointed out that the line ran 400 miles north of Montreal and the assurances given by the government then have since been repeated that there would be a branch connecting that great national highway with Montreal, but though some of our most important commercial bodies have called attention to this time and again, nothing has been done by the government. Again, the Transportation Commission recommended most urgently the construction of the Georgian Bay canal, a great public work, which concerns not only the city of Montreal, but the whole of Canada east and west. It has been pointed out to the government that every year's delay in the construction of the Georgian Bay canal means vastly increased expense, perhaps one million dollars a year, because of the rising value of land which must be acquired at the canal's eastern terminus at Montreal, but nothing has been done.


George Taylor: They had to build the Newmarket canal first.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: That may he so, but I am merely giving this as an instance of the way

in which the government neglects the interests of our great commercial metropolis. When the Canadian Pacific railway some months ago began the reconstruction of its bridge over the St. Lawrence river at Lachine, all the surrounding municipalities became greatly interested in the question of having the bridge made a highway for vehicular, pedestrian and street car traffic in the same way as the Grancf Trunk Victoria-Jubilee bridge at Montreal was equipped in 1897, when it was reconstructed. I may point out to the House that the locality on the Montreal side of the Lachine bridge is daily increasing in population, in importance, in wealth, and possibly within a veTy short time it will be included in the municipal boundaries of Montreal. On the other hand, the counties on the south shore of the St. Lawrence are also greatly interested in this matter so that they may obtain easy access to the markets of Montreal, I communicated- some time ago with Sir Thomas Shaughnessy president of the Canadian Pacific railway pointing out to him the vast interests that are involved and asking him what might be done to have this a highway bridge as well as a railway bridge. I wrote to Sir Thomas Shaughnessy explaining the circumstances, mentioning the municipalities and localities on whose behalf I was acting, asking for some suggestion and the favour of an interview with the interested parties. I had previously explained the circumstances viva voce to Sir Thomas but I thought it better to reduce my demands to writing. To my letter, a copy of which I did not keep, no answer was received. I then wrote to the Minister of Railways advising him of the fact that I had brought this matter before the president of the Canadian Pacific railway, and asking the minister to give his attention to it, in view of the pressing needs that would be served by making the Canadian Pacific railway bridge a public highway.
My hon. friend answered me at that time that the building of the roadway was a matter within the jurisdiction of the [DOT] province and concerning the municipalities and not the Dominion. I replied to that letter pointing out to my hon. friend that this was not an ordinary roadway, nor a municipal question, that although municipalities were interested, the real question was whether the Dominion government, which I presume had intended subsidizing this bridge, or, at any Tate, had subsidized this railway across the St. Lawrence, would not take the matter up with the president of the company and urge upon him the necessity of co-operating with the plan that I had placed before him and of conferring with the representatives of the municipalities if perchance it was necessary for the municipalities to contribute or take some part in the new work. In answer to that last letter, the hon. the Mr. MONK.
Minister Of Railways and Canals informed me that he bad taken up the matter with the Canadian Pacific railway and had a reply from the president of. the company to the effect that he thought it would be better and cheaper, if a highway bridge is intended, to build it separate from the railway bridge. The hon. the Minister added:-
I will be glad to co-operate in any way with* in our purview in meeting the wishes of the people if those under whose jurisdiction this matter is wish to take it up.
To an inquiry as important as that one, which I made to the authorities of the Canadian Pacific railway, the authorities of that company have not seen fit to favour me with an answer, and I expostulated with the company on the ground that a railway, such as that one, which has been so largely subsidized by the country in lands and money, when a question of this kind is brought to its notice, is a public body, and in. my estimation, under an obligation to lay before those who make the inquiry, the grounds of their refusal to give the required information or to lay before the interested parties, a large proportion, in this case, the reason upon which they base their refusal to concur in the new plan of structure for the bridge, or else to lay before the interested parties the conditions upon which the constructing party would be disposed to give that character to the bridge. To that letter, in which .1 explained to the best of my knowledge the reasons which militated in favour of the position I took up with the company, I have received no answer, although that letter has duly arrived -at its destination, and to-day the motion which I made, calls for that correspondence. I also take this occasion to ask the government whether this is not a matter which in the interests of the city of Montreal, and its vicinity, and of the surrounding counties, it might properly take up, with the municipalities. In 1897 the government of the country gave & subsidy of $500,000 towards the reconstruction of the Victoria Jubilee bridge, on condition, as I understand it, that the reconstruction should take place under certain plans that afford increased facilities for communication between the north and the south shores of the St. Lawrence. Here is a city which is going to soon have a population of 1,000,000 people. It is on an island, it is essential to the welfare of the city and for the advancement of neighbouring counties, situated on the south shore, that there should be free communication at all seasons between the two shores. If the government saw fit to give a subsidy to the Grand Trunk railway in 1897, why should it not at least upon this occasion, enter into negotiations, pour par-

lers with the Canadian Pacific railway, or the railway, which ever it is, because I know that the Canadian Pacific railway has the lease and has the control of most of those railways in the vicinity of Montreal, in order to ascertain if this improvement can be carried out and, if necessary, take the means required, including a subsidy, if that is desirable, in order that that great public improvement should be carried out and that this opportunity for its being carried out should not be lost.


Mr. J. A. ROBB. (Huntingdon).: Mr. Speaker, as intimated by the hon. member for .Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk), the reconstruction of the Canadian Pacific Railway bridge is of interest to the people of the south side of the river. It must be satisfactory to them to know that the people of Montread and vicinity are also interested in this. I am not sure if my hon. friend (Mr. Monk), is aware that early in June the representatives of the south side of the St. Lawrence, federal and provincial, met and urged upon the interested parties that when the bridge was rebuilt it be made large enough for electric cars and also for a highway, and if anything can be done, if the people of the Canadian Pacific railway are looking to this government for a subsidy, I will very heartily support the hon member for Jacques Cartier, (Mr. Monk), in urging upon the government consideration of the claims of the people on the south side who will be glad to know that the hon. member for Jacques Cartier is taking such an active interest in this matter.


George Perry Graham: Mr. Speaker, the matter which the hon. member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk), has brought before the House, is one of a great deal of interest particularly to the municipalities affected. There are two questions to be considered. One is, should this government aid another roadway bridge in addition to those already existing across the St. Lawrence in the vicinity of Montreal? If it should aid such a bridge would it be wise to insist that it be built in connection with the Canadian Pacific Railway bridge? It is not as if the Canadian Pacific railway were coming to the government with a new proposition, this is a bridge of their own, which they are reconstructing and it is largely a question of consultation with the Canadian Pacific railway as to whether they would favour, under any consideration, attaching a roadway and an electric street railway to their other bridge. It may be, that in the reconstruction of that bridge, as the presi-25
dent, I think, pointed out in a letter to me, attaching the road bridge to it would cost an additional amount equal to, or perhaps greater, than the cost of building a roadway bridge at some other point. It would be a question of how much would be necessary in the reconstruction of the piers, &c. It may be that in rebuilding their bridge as a railway bridge, the old piers would still do, but if they attached roadways or electric tracks it might be necessary to either enlarge the old piers or build new ones. I think my hon. friend was mistaken in the amount to Victoria bridge.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: $500,000, I think.


George Perry Graham: I was told $300,000, but that is immaterial.


Mr. MARTIN (St. Mary's).: $300,000?


George Perry Graham: There was an amount given anyway, but I think the conditions were altogether different. Let me refer for a moment to what my hon. friend said about Montreal and the Transcontinental railway. It is a source of gratification in the eastern part of Canada, and as well in the west, where values are rising so rapidly in the cities, to know that an investment in real estate in the city of Montreal is as good an investment as it could be in any other city in the Dominion. It is satisfactory to know that the improvements in the west, and in the trade of the country is so general that Montreal, being its outlet and eastern gateway, has' benefited to such an extent that real estate values have risen there as rapidly as in any part of western Canada. I am sure that every member of the government feels an interest in every part of Canada, and that the intention exists on the part of the government to do everything possible for Montreal, as well as every other place in the Dominion. It would not be possible for any government to do anything which would put a stop to the progress of Montreal. Nature has placed that city where it must be the gateway for a large share of the trade of the Dominion, and it cannot fail to prosper. As to the Transcontinental railway it must get access to Montreal just as any railway that approaches it must get access to our commercial metropolis. That may take a little time, for we all know that the Grand Trunk Pacific is costing a large amount of money, and that Canada is spending a very large amount on these great projects, which in this new country, are pressing their attention on the people. All cannot be done at once, but there are two or three ways in which Montreal will get connection with the Transcontinental and that very speedily. In fact, there is a line now to Montreal via Ottawa, the Grand



Trunk railway, up to North Bay, and the T. & N. O. to the Transcontinental, so that Montreal is ready to take traffic from the Grand Trunk Pacific as soon as it is finished. The government is further showing its willingness by offering a subsidy from Montreal to a railway to connect with the Grand Trunk Pacific. I want to reiterate that in their own interests these railways must go into the centres of trade, and the Grand Trunk Pacific will never think for a moment of operating its eastern section without having a connecting link into the great commercial metropolis. There need, therefore, be no fear entertained that Montreal will not shortly have traffic connection with the Grand Trunk Pacific.
My hon. friend has referred to the Georgian Bay canal. That is another great project before the people. In addition there is the Welland canal enlargement. These things are all necessary, and we must have them all as our trade increases. But I think myself and I believe that opinion is shared by every member of the House, that we have the natural situation in this Dominion to enable us, not only to do our own carrying trade, but a large portion of the carrying trade of the people to the south. These vast undertakings are urging their claims upon us, but our income is limited, and we can only proceed as rapidly as our means will allow, and I think I can safely say that there is no country in the world with our population which has shown as much courage as we have in the spending of money for the development of transportation.
With regard to this correspondence, I have taken the matter up with the president of the Canadian Pacific railway, but for the moment I do not know how much correspondence has taken place. I wrote to him and he replied, but I shall be glad to bring down what correspondence there is in response to the motion of my hon. friend.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Frederick Debartzch Monk: For a return showing the names and dates of first appointment of all light-house keepers from Quebec to the sea in the River and Gulf of St. Lawrence; also their present salaries, with an indication in each case of what they are obliged to provide for the light-house or signal service and the amount of indemnity granted them for such provision. Also the rules or regulations which provide for the regular increase of their salaries.
He said: We have among our public servants the keepers of light-houses between Quebec and the open sea, and I do not think it would be possible to find a more


George Perry Graham: courageous, hardworking and ill-paid set of men than these same light-house keepers below Quebec. They have most of them been -at their posts a large number of years and they are continually exposed to danger. Their health suffers and they are put to considerable expense in order to educate their families. If you consider the responsibilities of their office, arising out of the work they have to do and contrast that with the pay they get you will be surprised that the country can possibly be served as well as it is. Under these circumstances one naturally asks how it is that when living has become more expensive, and the work has increased, they do not. appear to have been given any proportionate increase in their salaries. The reason is probably that they have no one to look after their interests. But it seems to me that with the growing importance of our trade, and the great necessity there is to have our shipping provided with all the aids possible to navigation, surely we ought to have some regard for the interests of those reliable men who look after our light-houses, who sound the fog horns, who give the necessary signals, and who must be always on the alert. We ought to know what are their salaries, and what is provided for them in the way of pensions after they have become incapable of continuing in the service, and also what increases they have had during the past ten or twenty years.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: There is certainly no objection in bringing down the papers asked for. The salaries of the light-house keepers have been considered by the government and it was decided to increase to a large extent their remuneration. If my hon. friend will consult the estimates which have been brought down to the House, he will find that an amount of $50,000 has been provided this year for such increases of salaries.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: When will this report be brought down?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: I think within a few days. Now, I am very glad to hear my hon. friend bearing testimony to the devotion of these officers of the Department of Marine and Fisheries. The light-keepers are in some cases in very difficult situations, obliged to live on barren land, remote from the rest of the world, and we have to take that fact into consideration in fixing their salaries. Others, of course, are better situated, keeping lights which are near cultivated lands, or perhaps able to carry on some cultivation themselves. But I suppose my hon. friend has special reference to light-keepers situated at remote points like the Strait of Belle Isle.

Mi-. MONK. No, those on the south shore between L.'Islet and the Gulf-Father Point and other places.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: I do not know whether my hon. friend is aware that some two years ago Colonel Anderson prepared a classification of the light-keepers all over the Dominion. Previously the light-keepers were paid to a certain extent according to the work they had to do and the importance of the light they had to look after, but there was no classification.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I think there is none today.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: My hon. friend is mistaken. Two years ago I had all the agents of the department and the inspectors of lights meet here to discuss the question of the salaries of the light-keepers and to provide for a classification. They made 16 different classes of the lights of the country. Formerly there was no classification at all, and there was considerable inequality in the salaries of the light-keepers. I thought it was a situation that was not at all acceptable and should not be continued, and that is the reason I got all the agents of the department and the inspectors of lights to come to Ottawa. They spent days and weeks working at the classification, and after they had outlined it, Colonel Anderson spent weeks and months completing it; There is no man in the country, I think who knows more about the lights all over the Dominion than Colonel Anderson.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Has each and every one of the light-keepers from Quebec to the sea been put in some class?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Certainly. I do not know that the report has been asked for, but I shall be very glad to bring it down, and my hon. friend will see that all these lights have been classified.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I am not speaking of the lights but of the light-housekeepers. Does the classification govern the salary?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Certainly. In each case I provide a minimum and a maximum salary. No one is appointed except on the minimum salary, and from that, if he is a good and faithful officer, he is entitled to an increase in salary.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Does that apply to the lights of the inland waters as well?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Yes. I know it applies to the Georgian bay.


Mr. BRADBURY.: Does it apply to the western lakes also?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: I think so. I am sure that it applies to the Gulf, the Georgian bay, 254
the Great Lakes and the Pacific coast, and I am almost sure that it applies also to-Lake Winnipeg, though I am not positive. I shall be very glad to bring down the regulations and the documents asked for by my hon. friend. I entirely approve of what my hon. friend said in regard to the devotion of the light-keepers. I am glad to say that during the last six years that I have had charge of this department there has been only one case drawn to my attention where a light-keeper has failed to light his light at night. I think this is a remarkably good record. We are very severe in regard to negligence of that kind, and although this officer was well known to me, was almost a friend of mine, we dismissed him because we considered the interests of navigation at stake were so important that we could not allow a case of negligence like that to go unpunished. Considering the fact that we have in the service more than a thousand light-keepers, I think that is a splendid record, that during the last six years only one man has been found to fail in his duty on one occasion. I shall be glad to bring down the papers asked for, and especially the classification to which by hon. friend refers.


Mr. CHARLES A. GAUVREAU (Temis-couata).: (Translation). Mr. Speaker, may I be permitted, before this motion is carried, to add a few words to what has just been said. This question of the light-house keepers' salaries is not a new one to us, because I have done my very best, for five or six years, not only in the press, but also in this House, to defend that class of men so important with respect to navigation on the St. Lawrence river. I had understood, so far, that those officers were not remunerated according to the importance of their services. After quite a few years of persevering efforts I must say, to the credit of the honourable Minister of Marine, that he has taken their case in hand by ordering the officers of his department to study the question and to make a classification. I may say to the honourable member for Jacques-Cartier (Mr. Monk), if, however, he allows me to speak to him, that this question has been settled by a commission. A classification of the light-house keepers has taken place. I may think otherwise than the officers of the department on this question. While I would not say that they have been rather quick in taking action, still I believe that they have not sufficiently taken into account all the circumstances and certain details pertaining to that question. I think that the Minister of Marine might have this classification revised, because it does not do justice to all the keepers, I might quote instances; but I do not wish to take up the time of the House.
As a matter of fact this subject has been debated in the' press and elsewhere,.

and the minister has complied with our just requirements. At the present moment there are complaints of mine before the department and I hope that those requests shall be studied and that a satisfactory result may be arrived at before this session is at an end.
True it is that the sum of $50,000 has been put in the estimates with a view to increasing the salaries of those employees. That is all very well; but I would like to know how that sum shall be distributed. I could not say whether the honourable minister shall abide by the opinion of that same commission. At all events I would advise him to gather information with respect to each particular case, to consult people in the counties where there are such employees as light-house keepers, in order to ascertain who among those men should get an increase of salary. The importance of the light-house itself has taken as a basis for that classification. The difficulties arising from the very location of those lighthouses have not been considered. There are light-houses on remote islands challenging easy communications and lying far away from schools and churches, all of which puts the keepers to all kinds of trouble.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: That has been taken into consideration.
Mr. GAUVREAU? Perhaps it has been, in certain cases, but if I could readily submit particular cases in which it has been completely overlooked. I do not wish to question the good will of the officers of the department; but, after all, human nature is the same everywhere, and mistakes may have been made. I will say to the hon. minister that there is certainly some discontent and that the classification made two years ago did not please everybody. One cannot always please everybody, and the hon. member for Jacques-Cartier knows it as well as I do.
At all events, I expect a goc*d deal from the efforts we have made on this point. I hope that this debate shall not be useless and that it may render some service to the so important class of the light-house keepers in the lower St. Lawrence.


Mr. CYRIAS ROY (Montmagny).: (Translation). Mr. Speaker, I am glad to take part in the debate concerning the question raised by the hon. member for Jacques-Cartier, and* I heard with much pleasure that the hon. Minister of Marine had decided to increase the salaries of the lighthouse keepers. Since I represented the county of Montmagny, I had occasion to go to the hon. minister's office myself, and to ask for that increase. There is a lighthouse keeper in my county, and I was answered that a classification had been made. But I do not consider that three or Mr. GAUVREATJ.
four hundred dollars is sufficient for a light-house keeper. When those appointments were made, old mariners were hired, men who used to earn a high salary. Now I ask the House: is it fair to grant those people who earned a high salary, men experienced in navigation, but who, owing to their age, were obliged to retire on a lighthouse in the middle of the river; is it fair, I say, to grant them but a salary of three or four hundred dollars a year? The classification has been made according to the importance of the light-houses. But it must be remembered that, previous to this, there was a system of pension for those officers, and that this system of pension has been abolished since; so that, now, those keepers have but this small sum of three or four hundred dollars out of which to make savings for their old days.
I speak for my county and as far as I am concerned, I am glad that this question has been raised. I congratulate the hon. minister who has'decided to take the question into serious consideration by putting in the estimates a sum sufficient to do justice to those mariners who were devoted to the extent of isolating themselves and whose important position carries with itself so much responsibility.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I am very glad to see the interest manifested in these men and I think there are same cases particularly where some measure of increase ought to be granted. I believe there is a petition being circulated to that effect at the present time.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Frederick Debartzch Monk: For a copy of a report by Mr. W. T. R. Preston, Commissioner of Trade and Commerce in Holland re the establishment of a Netherland Loan Company in Canada; of all communications between the Department of Trade and Commerce and any other department of the government and Mr. Preston on the subject-matter of this report; a copy of correspondence between Mr. Preston and any person or persons in Holland regarding proposed operations of a Dutch Loan Company in Canada, and a copy of correspondence or communications of any nature whatsoever between the government or the department with any persons relating to this question.
He said:	Just a few words with regard
to this motion. I think that all members of this House will admit that it is of the greatest importance for us to encourage the placing of foreign capital in this country. _ The motion now submitted to the House interests particularly the members from the Northwest because it is in the Northwest that the circumstances arose which gave rise to the making of this proposition. Some time ago there was a company organized in Holland having for its object to

loan money in the Northwest of Canada on first mortgage and to loan that money at the rate, if I mistake not-the correspondence will show-of 5 per cent. This was something unheard of in the west. As I understand, loans in the west, even well secured loans, command a rate of interest of 7, 8 and 9 per cent. The company sought information regarding the possible investment of a large amount of capita] in the Northwest and finally decided to organize and to invest, I believe, about $500,000 a year at the rate of interest that I have mentioned. As the preparations of the company were complete and when it had finally decided to start its operations, there came information to one of the directors of the company from some part of this country, I believe from Montreal, putting these possible investors upon their guard against investment upon the first mortgage in the Northwest and telling them, through this director, that the land values in the Northwest had been booming, and that they could not possibly have the assurance of a safe guarantee if they loaned up to fifty per cent of the value of this land. As capital, not only in Holland but everywhere else throughout the world, is extremely diffident and fearful, this information, in view of the source from which it came, deterred these men from carrying out their original intention of organizing a company and investing large sums at a low rate of interest in the Northwest. The object of this motion is to obtain all the reports, correspondence, &c., between the government and our trade commissioner in Holland regarding the establishment of the Netherland Loan Company in Canada, the correspondence between Mr. Preston and any person or persons in Holland and the correspondence of any nature whatever relating to this question.
It must be evident, I think, to the government and to the House that it is most important for us, since we expend a very large sum on trade representatives in other countries, to control carefully the reports unfavourable to the opening of trade relations which may be sent to the country in question where capital or other forms of investment are about to be provided for Canada or any part of it. It must be evident that cases will occur when rivals in business, men engaged in similar lines of business to those projected, or capitalists, fearing the rivalry of new capital arriving in the country, would be liable, if possible, to discredit and discourage the new enterprise. Under these circumstances I submit that we must exercise the utmost caution and carefully supervise any attempts of that kind that are made to thwart the efforts of our trade commissioners or agents who are sent into other countries in order to invite capital into this country. This is the first instance since I have been in the House in which a case of this kind has come up, and I suppose there is no objection to our getting down this official correspondence in order that we may see exactly what has taken place in the case of the Netherland Loan Company.


Wilfrid Laurier: Mr. Speaker, but for a fact that has transpired since my hon. friend put his motion on the Order Paper, I think that, for my part, I would have had considerable diffidence in granting the motion. No one can object to the statement which has been made by my hon. friend in support of his motion on the ground of the desirability that we should secure and obtain all the capital that can be obtained from every part of the world, and especially from so rich a country as Holland. I call my hon. friend's attention to this, however, that when the report came to us from Mr. Preston that the efforts of the company which had intended to invest in Canada had been arrested, as it was represented to us, by some gentleman in Canada, the question arose for us as to what we were to do. If it had turned out that the party who had just acted was connected in any way with the government of Canada or if he were any party for whom the government of Canada were responsible, it would be quite proper that we should obtain all particulars so that we might, if necessary, exercise censure upon him, or prevent a repetition of such an offence. But if the party turned out to be a private citizen over whom we had no control whatever, who was not responsible to us, who was independent of us, who could express any opinion that he thought fit, it would not be a question for us, and I think my hon. friend will see the propriety of the suggestion I make, that we should not bring down that correspondence because the opinion is that of a gentleman over whom this House could not exercise any authority whatever. Suppose this party, this gentleman from Montreal, as it is supposed by my hon. friend, had gone to Holland, and had got into communication with a party who intended to start that company and advised him, for reasons sufficient for himself, not to invest in Canada, this wuuld have been very regrettable indeed, the Teasons which he might have given would not be shared by any one in this House, but at all events, they were his own opinions and with reference to his own opinions, however, unfounded they might be, neither this House, nor, still less, the government could exercise any recourse whatever.
We asked Mr. Preston to give this information, on the supposition that it might be an officer of the government who would be responsible to us, and over whom we could exercise authority. The' . answer, which is quite the reverse of what we ex-

peeled, disclosed the name of a gentleman who is not connected with Montreal, but with the city of Ottawa. He is a private citizen over whom we have no control, and I think it my duty to call the attention of my hoir. friend (Mr. Monk), to this, and to ask him not to proceed further with the motion. It has since reached the ears of this gentleman that he is mentioned in this correspondence, and I have received a letter from him'to the-effect that he wants the papers to bp brought down and an inquiry made. When I mention the name of the gentleman referred to in the correspondence, I am sure my hon. friend will accept his statement; or the statement that he gave any advice of any kind in reference to the enterprise, is absolutely unfounded. I will read this letter now so that it may form part of the correspondence. I may add that but for the request contained in this letter, I certainly would have asked my hon. friend (Mr Monk), to withdraw his motion.
Ottawa, December 2, 1910 Eight Honourable
Sir Wilfrid Laurier, G.C.M.G.,
Ottawa.
Dear Mr. Prime Minister,-My attention has just been drawn to this day's routine proceedings of the House of Commons with special reference to question No. 4 by Mr. Smith of Nanaimo, on pages 4 and 5 and to notices of motion by Mr. Monk on pages 25 and 26, numbered respectively 8 and 9. I am also informed now for tbe first time that I am mentioned by Mr. Preston, the agent of your government in Holland, as tbe person who through some representations made to Dutch capitalists prevented the proposed establishment of a Netherlands Loan Company in Canada.
In these circumstances, may I ask you:
1.	To facilitate the constitution of the select committee asked for by Mr. Monk.
2.	To give me copies of the correspondence referred to.
May I express my regret that this matter has been allowed^ to proceed thus far without any communication with me.
I also presume it will not he necessary for me to add that the statements made by Mr. Preston, supported, as it is alleged, by some person or persons in Holland, are absolutely without foundation in fact.
Tours very truly,
(Signed) C. FITZPATRICK.
It will thus be seen that it is the name of the Chief Justice of Canada which is mentioned in Mr. Preston's correspondence. The Chief Justice denies in the most absolute terms that he ever gave any information of the nature that is mentioned in the motion of my hon. friend (Mr. Monk), and under such circumstances I dare say that my hon. friend will he satisfied that the Chief Justice would be incapable of any action of the kind referred to in the motion.


Wilfrid Laurier: 


Frederick Debartzch Monk: What I have just heard fall from the lips of the Prime Minister is absolutely new to me. I saw the report which appeared in the Montreal papers at the time and I thought this was the proper course to adopt, but I hope my right hon. friend will accept my assurance that I had no idea whatever who the person was who it is alleged had given this damaging information. I do not know if I correctly understood my right hon. friend, but I understood him to say that if the person who had done this thing was under our control as a government there would be no objection to this method of procedure; but that as the person is not under our control my right hon. friend does not see the use of pursuing an investigation into the thing.


Wilfrid Laurier: Hear, hear.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Well, I do not know that the fact of the person being under the control of the government of Canada or not under the control of the government of Canada, makes any difference as far as this inquiry is concerned. It seems to me it is a fit and proper thing for the House, under all circumstances, to find out how the carrying out of the objects of this company was prevented. It does not appear to me to be different whether it is an ordinary civil servant who gave this information or a person who by his position is independent of the control of the government. The main object of these motions, and of the questions which preceded them was to find out the facts in order that in the future such things should not occur again, without any reason or justification for them. Does my right hon. friend wish me to withdraw both of these motions? I I do not think I could do that.


Wilfrid Laurier: With regard to the motion at present before the House, if the hon. gentleman wants to have it carried I have no objection in view of the letter of Sir Charles Fitzpatrick. As to the next motion, notwithstanding the' fact that Sir Charles asks for the constitution of a select committee I have a great objection to that, but we will come to that later.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Does the letter of Sir Charles Fitzpatrick object to the production of this document?


Wilfrid Laurier: No, Sir Charles Fitzpatrick asks that it shall be brought down.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: In order to get at the actual facts and to disabuse the minds of these people from any erroneous impression which may have been even accidentally conveyed, I think there should be an investigation, even if the person referred

to is one over whom the government has no control.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Frederick Debartzch Monk: Whereas, in the opinion of this House, it is in the interest of Canada that any attempt to prevent capital from seeking investment in this country should be fully inquired into and prevented. That a select committee of the House should be constituted, with power to investigate all the circumstances which led to the proposed establishment of a Nether-land Loan Company in Canada, and the representations made to Dutch capitalists in order to deter them from such establishment, the person or persons making such representations, and the -grounds or reasons of such representations. Said committee to be constituted of five members, and to have power to summon witnesses, to employ a shorthand writer and to print all evidence adduced; said committee to report to this House from time to time until the conclusion of said investigation.
This motion is more or less connected with the previous one, and having heard the Prime Minister read the letter which he has just read to the House, it seems to me doubly important that this inquiry should take place so as to exonerate a gentleman of very high position who has been accused in the papers of giving information which was detrimental to the bringing of foreign capital into the Northwest. Although the representations^ of Mr. Preston are not well founded, yet, it might be of advantage to everybody to bring that fact out and to show under what circumstances, what has so far been called misrepresentation, has been made. Does not that appeal to my right hon. friend?


Wilfrid Laurier: No, and for this reason :	There has been a suspicion
that some person in this community had been guilty of having given to these capitalists an erroneous impression as to the character of investments, and the possibilities of profit which they could make. Nobody suspected that the person who is charged or reputed to be charged was the Chief Justice of Canada, and I feel sure that the moment it is known that it is the Chief Justice of Canada who is mentioned in that correspondence, whatever suspicion there might otherwise be will at once disappear. For that reason alone I would not agree with the motion of my hon. friend. There is, however, another reason. Suppose it appeared that Mr. Smith or Mr. Brown, a gentleman high or low in the community had given that information, he, as a private citizen, would be absolutely out of the jurisdiction of this parliament and we could not investigate his conduct. We have no provision by which we could censure him or prevent him giving his opinion in whatever manner he pleases, and I therefore cannot see why the parliament of Canada should be called on to investigate into the opinions of any private citizen. Suppose a private citizen of Canada were visiting Holland as a tourist or otherwise, and he made such statements, it would be beneath the dignity of the parliament of Canada to have an investigation into that matter, and it certainly would be ineffective. But, when it is a gentleman of the high character of the Chief Justice of Canada-and I take the statement of my hon. friend (Mr. Monk) without .any reservation that he did not know who was the person mentioned-it is another matter, and I am quite sure that had my hon. friend (Mr. Monk) known it he would not have made this motion. In view of the fact that the allegation is made in connection with a gentleman of such high character, I do not believe, that any one will for a moment think that we should have such an investigation. I hope my hon. friend will withdraw his motion.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I am in the hands of the House in respect to this particular matter, but it seems to me that the rule laid down by my right hon. friend, that in a matter of this kind we should only investigate the conduct of persons over whom the House has direct control, is not well founded. Because if we aTe right in saying that we must see to it that capital should not be frightened away from this country we have a right to investigate every possible circumstance by which capital has been prevented from coming to the country. I do not see that the matter of our particular jurisdiction over a person who makes the damaging statement has anything to do with the question. The object of this inquiry is not to punish, it is to get information of the statements and to show whether they are unjustifiable or not. There is no question of punishing the party whoever he may be who has deterred the capitalist from placing his capital in this country. I do not know what the correspondence asked for by the previous motion may show, but perhaps my right hon. friend will allow us to adjourn the debate on this motion in order that we may receive the correspondence.


Wilfrid Laurier: My hon. friend might allow his motion to drop to-day and if, after seeing the correspondence, he wishes to renew it I would be very happy to hear it.


Robert Laird Borden: As I have just entered the Chamber, I do not know ex-

actly what has taken place. I have seen nothing in regard to this matter in the press or otherwise, except what is in the Order Paper. Is the conduct of Mr. Preston called in question in any way?


Wilfrid Laurier: Not at all.


Robert Laird Borden: Well, how did this suspicion arise? In respect to the chief justice I accept entirely the view that his statement on the matter ought to set it at rest completely so far as he is concerned. How did the matter get mooted abroad that there had been some representations made to capitalists in Holland which deterred them from investing in the Northwest? As I understand that would come from Mr. Preston.


Wilfrid Laurier: That is correct. A company, it is alleged, was formed to invest money in the Northwest, but aftdr haying gone to a certain length the capitalists withdrew and the company failed. It is alleged that the reason why the company failed to organize and to prosecute its _ undertaking was some information which was given to the intending promoter, by a gentleman who at the time was not known. Information was asked from Mr. Preston upon the subject and he was asked to give the name of the gentleman.
I said a moment ago, in the absence of my hon. friend (Mr. Borden, Halifax), that the Department of Trade and Commerce asked Mr. Preston for this information in the supposition_ that the information had, perhaps, been given by some one connected with the Dominion government, or for whom the Dominion government had some responsibility, but it turned out, on the contrary, that it was supposed to be a private citizen and in the correspondence which was _ received, Mt. Preston says it was the chief justice of Canada who gave that information. Sir Charles Fitzpatrick has written me to deny this altogether. Now, my hon. friend (Mr. Monk) asks us to have a committee appointed to investigate, not what are the conditions of finance in Canada, but who is the party who has given that information, that is to say, whether or not Sir Charles Fitzpatrick has given it. I submit that under such circumstances there is no reason at all to make such an inquiry.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The principle laid down by the First Minister that we have no right to bring before this House, or a committee any one^ except those directly under and responsible to this House, does not seem to be a sound one.


Wilfrid Laurier: How have we the right?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: In many committees we often bring people before this House over whom we have no control, as for instance in


Mr.  E. L.@: contested elections voters are brought here in large numbers over whom we have no more control, than we have over these private individuals. If in this case it is found, after inquiry, that what is presumed to be an allegation of fact in Mr. Preston's statement is only an allegation of fiction, would it not be courteous to a very prominent man to clear that up? I think it would. If there was no other interest involved excepting that it seems to me that it would be almost desirable to go on with the inquiry. I am not advocating that, but I am dissenting from the principle the right hon. gentleman has laid down that we have no right to bring before us any man unless he is under the control of this House.


Wilfrid Laurier: We have the power, I do not know that we have the right to do so. I understand that this is a motion to have a committee appointed to investigate who gave that damaging information, if it was given. If it were a private citizen, I do not know that it would conduce to any good results to investigate and find out that it was John Smith or James Brown or any one else. I do not think it would be dignified or that it would serve any useful purpose to secure such information, but when it is now on record that the information was given by the Chief Justice of Canada, I think the word he has given is quite sufficient to show that he is quite incapable of giving such information.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: If the motion is dropped,
and it beconies necessary to renew it, I presume I shall not be met with the objection that the House has already dealt with this matter.


Wilfrid Laurier: Not at all. Motion withdrawn.



MOTIONS AGREED TO WITHOUT DISCUSSION.

[Stage Direction]
J: For a return showing all data, statements, estimates, recommendations and reports with regard to an Intercolonial railway renewal equipment account, and as to the initiation of such account and the operation thereof to the present time.
2.	A copy of all correspondence with the Auditor General and other persons in regard thereto.
3.	A copy of all correspondence, inquiries and investigations by or on behalf of the Auditor General as to the need for such account, and as to the sufficiency or otherwise of moneys carried to such account, and also as to the application of such moneys.
4.	The same returns as to the maintenance of rails account; and the same returns as to a maintenance of bridges account, also as to any other items of maintenance, and as to any recommendations regarding the adoption of such accounts.-Mr. Barker.﻿785

For a copy of all reports, evidence, correspondence, and other documents relating to an investigation into irregularities in the life saving station at Clayoquot, mentioned on page 353 of the report of the Department of Marine and Fisheries for 1909 and 1910, Sessional Paper No. 22.-Mr. Barnard.
For a copy of the tender and contract of Haney, Quinlan & Robertson for construction of locomotive and other shops about six miles east of Winnipeg, and the total estimated cost based on contract prices. Also a copy of the several other tenders sent in and a statement of the total estimated cost based upon each of these tenders as moneyed out at the time of awarding the contract.-Mr. Lennox.
1.	For a return showing the contract between the Quebec Bridge and Railway Company and M. P. Davis, dated July 27, 1903, providing for the construction of the lines of railway connecting the Quebec bridge with the city of Quebec and with certain other railways, the tender upon which the contract was based, and the estimated cost at the time of the contract based upon the scheduled quantities and prices.
2.	The agreement transferring this undertaking to the government, and of all correspondence and documents in connection therewith and of the order in council of 16th, February, 1909, transferring it to the commissioners of the Transcontinental railway.
3.	And stating the mileage of the lines of railway embraced in this contract.
4.	The sums paid on account by the Quebec Bridge and Railway Company, and the purposes for which it was paid.
5.	The amount owing or claimed by the contractor for work done or material supplied up to the time the undertaking was taken over by the government, and the date of taking it oyer, the amount paid or undertaken to be paid by the government to the company or its members, the estimated amount at that time required to complete the work, the amount the government or commissioners have since paid and the estimated amount yet to be paid.
6.	And setting forth the reasons for taking the undertaking out of the hands of the Bridge and Railway Company and for transferring it to the commissioners.
7.	Any other sums paid, allowed or assumed for or on account of this company or its members, and the account on which paid, allowed or assumed.-Mr. Lennox.
For a return showing:-
1.	The estimated quantity of each class of material required for the construction.
2.	The rates or prices agreed upon and the estimated cost of each class of material, based on rates on accepted tender.
3.	The total estimated cost based on these quantities and rates in each case of the several bridges let to contract during the fiscal year ended March 31, 1910, referred to on pages 3 and 4 of the Sixth Annual Report of the Commissioners of the Transcontinental railway.
4.	A copy of the specifications and contract in each case, the number of the contract and the name of the contractor.
5.	The number of bridges yet to be let to contract, location and character, and the estimated quantity of the different kinds of material in each case.
6.	Why these bridges have not been let to contract and when contracts will probably be entered into as to these.
7.	The bridges let to contract before March 81, 1909, identified by locality, name of each contractor and number, the estimated cost of each of these bridges at the time the contract was let, based on contract prices, the changes made in the plans, specifications or contracts, if any, and claims or allowances for alterations or extras, if any, the percentage of the work done, the payments made to date, the amounts retained as contract reserve, and the ascertained or estimated amount required to complete in each case.
8.	The bridges that have been completed, identified as above, the estimated cost at the time of awarding .the contract, the nature and extent of changes in plans, specifications, or contract, if any, the increase or decrease of cost thereby occasioned, and the actual total cost of each of those bridges.-Mr. Lenno.5.
For a return showing the number of public buildings occupied in whole or in part as post offices, giving in the case of partial occupation only, the other services to which the building is applied and the part and proportion of the building used by each service; the name of the place in which the building is situated and its population; the total amount of public money expended on each building; including site and equipment, down to the end of the last financial year; the postal revenue in each case, and the revenue, if any, received by the government from the buildings as rentals, or otherwise, and the sources of such revenue.-Mr. Lennox.
For a statement showing the detailed expenditure to date out of the sum voted by the House in connection with the new navy, giving in each case the amount paid, to whom paid and the object of the expenditure.-Mr. Monk.
For a copy of the agreement of settlement of the late strike between the Grand Trunk Railway Company and the conductors and brakemen, and of all correspondence, documents and papers relating thereto, or in consequence thereof, between the said parties, or between either and any person or persons authorized or professing to act for either, or between the government or any minister or deputy minister or other person on its behalf, and said parties, or either of them, or any person authorized or professing to act for them or either of them before, during or since said strike.-Mr. Northrup.
For a copy of the proclamation of the Governor in Council naming a day for the coming into force of an Act intituled: ' An Act to Amend the Railway Act, 1903, chapter 31 of the Statutes of Canada of 1904 as provided for by section 2 of that Act.'-Mr. Lennox.
For a return showing the date of the opening and closing of parliament for each year from 1896 to 1910, and the number of days the House and Senate were in session for each of these yeais.-Mr. Foster.
Sir WILFRID LAURIER moved the adjournment of the House.
Robert Laird Borden: What business to-morrow??


Wilfrid Laurier: Resolution regarding the Waterways Treaty and then the Bills of the government which are printed and then supply-Civil Government.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House adjourned at 10.35 p.m.


Mr. BRADBURY:: 1.	Was the Reverend Dr. John McDougall authorized since last session to investigate any matters in connection with the St. Peter's Indians and their reserve on the Red River ?
2.	If so, by whom was he so authorized and what was the scope of the investigation made by Dr. McDougall?
3.	Has the doctor made a report and will it, along with his instructions, be laid on the table of the House?
If so, when?


Mr. OLIVER:: 1.	Yes.
2.	(a) By the Superintendent General of Indian Affairs.
(b) Dr. McDougall was instructed to report as to the number of Indians that have removed to the new reserve; the steps that should be taken to facilitate further removals, and also in regard to the election of chief and councillors which the Indian agent had been instructed to hold.
3.	Dr. McDougall has made his report. It will be laid on the table of the House upon an order of the House when made.


Mr. BRADBURY :: 1.	What was the total amount of money received up to date from the sale by auction of lands in connection with, the surrender of St. Peter's Indian reserve?
2.	What was the total expenses incurred in connection with the said reserve?
3.	Were the expenses so incurred charged against the moneys received for the said lands?
4.	Are there any moneys still due the government for these lands ? If so, how much ?
5.	Has any money from the proceds of said sale been credited to the St. Peter's Indian Fund? If so, how much?
6.	How many families have been transferred to the new reserve on Lake Winnipeg?
7.	How many families still remain on the old reserve on the Red river?


Mr. OLIVER:: 1.	$36,660.05.
2.	The total expenses in connection with the sale by auction of the St. - Peter's reserve were $539.64.
3.	The said expenses were charged to Management Fund.
4.	There are no arrears of purchase price on these lands. The total sum unpaid is $48,628.89, which is due in three equal annual instalments, with interest.


Mr. R. L. BORDEN.: 5.	Yes. $36,660.05 has been credited to the Trust Fund of the St. Peter's band of Indians, less paid to individual Indians for improvements $877.50, and 10 per cent credited to Management Fund under terms of surrendet-$3,666.
6.	40.
7.	The number cannot be accurately given,-probably between 150 and 200.



CANADIAN CRUISER 'RAINBOW.'

Mr. MONK:: 1.	What was the date of the purchase of the cruiser 'Rainbow' by the Canadian government from the British Admiralty?
2.	What was the price paid and at what
date?
3.	Had the 'Rainbow' been scrapped by the imperial authorities at the time of said purchase?
4.	What is the armament of the 'Rainbow,' its tonnage and complement of men?
5.	Did the ' Rainbow ' undergo any repairs before leaving for Canada? If so, what was the nature and 'the cost of snob repairs ?


Mr. BRODEUR:: 1.	The purchase was authorized by order in council of 22nd November, 1909.
2.	$243,333.33. Paid in instalments.
3.	No.
4.	Armament: 2 6-inch, 6 4-7-inch, 8 6-pdr. guns, 1 3-pdr., 4 Maxims, 1-12 pdr. Field gun. Tonnage, 3,600. Complement, 273.
5.	The arrangement with the Admiralty was that the purchase price included the preparation of the ship for sea service; the Admiralty have not supplied details of any repairs, nor of the cost of the same.
Certain additional expenses were incurred by the High Commissioner to fit the vessels as training ships. A statement of the cost is not available at present, no report having yet been received from the High Commissioner.



CHINESE IMMIGRATION.

Mr. SMITH (Nanaimo) :: 1.	What was the total number of Chinese landed in Canada during the period from April 1, 1910, to October 31, 1910?
2.	Of these, what number paid the Capitation Tax?
3.	How many were admitted as exempts?
4.	Of those admitted as exempts, how many were admitted under each class of exempts?
5.	How .many Chinese have registered for leave of absence for one year, as permitted under the Act?
6.	How many Chinese have returned to Canada after leave of absence during the said period?
7.	How many Chinese have entered Canada for the purpose of passing in transit through Canada to a foreign country?


Sir WILFRID LAURIER:: 1.	3,536.
2.	2,868.
3.	668.

4.	Born in Canada	 7
Students	 1
Teachers	 2
Men of science	   1
Merchants	170
Merchants' sons	417
Merchants' wives	 43
Merchants' daughters	 27
Total	668
5.	2,153.
6.	3,050.
7.	1,232.



MR. W. T. R. PRESTON.

Mr. SMITH (Nanaimo):: 1.	Did the Department of Trade and Commerce publish in their weekly report a report from W. T. R. Preston respecting the Nether-land Mortgage Loan Company?
2.	If, so, what is the date and page number of the publication of the report referred to?
3.	Did Mr. Preston, in the report referred to, or at anv subsequent time, endorse the statements made therein?
4.	In view of the widespread interest taken in the report mentioned, did the department *ask for further explanation from Mr. Preston; if so, what was the nature of Mr. Preston's reply ?
5.	Did a gentleman in Holland, as reported in the press, communicate with the department confirming Mr. Preston's report?
6.	If so, what was the name and address of the gentleman, what was the nature of his communication, and what was the nature of the reply sent to him?
7.	Have any steps been taken by the department to obtain the name of the alleged Montreal correspondent who discredited western Canada? If so, what?
8.	Has the name of this gentleman been obtained? If so, what is his name?


Sir WILFRID LAIJRIER:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Page 1153 of Weekly Report No. 349 issued October 3, 1910.
3.	No.
4.	Yes. In his reply Mr. Preston stated that he was approached by certain Dutch financiers and asked his opinion respecting mortgage investments on farm lands in western Canada. In reply to these inquiries Mr. Preston states that he represented the time opportune for profitable investments in the west; that such loans could be obtained at at least 7 per cent and in some cases as high as 8 per cent; that loans could be made on the basis of from 30 to 40 per cent of the value of the farms.
5.	Yes.
6.	L. Droogleever Fortuyn, Amsterdam, Holland.
Mr. Fortuyn confirmed the information given him by Mr. Preston and stated:-
As against this information from Mr. Preston one of my proposed board of directors received information from a gentleman of influence in Canada that; first, farm lands in western Canada were held at excessive values
beyond the real value; second, these lands will after some time decline in value; third, at present mortgage moneys were available to the amount of 50 p.c. of the Value; fourth, at the rate of 5 p.c. interest per annum.
This information coming from an influential source destroyed confidence in the undertaking, and the gentleman who received this information declined to have his name joined in the organization of the proposed company.
Will you kindly tell me whether the opinion given to me by Mr. Preston or the one referred to in the latter paragraph is really the most reliable? I want to see the company successfully established and therefore find it necessary to have confirmed information if I can get it on Mr. Preston's opinion.
In reply Mr. Fortuyn was informed that the representations made him by Mr. Preston were correct; and further that trust or loan companies in Canada to-day are obtaining first-class first mortgage investments on farm lands at 50 per cent of established values at rates of interest varying from six to eight per cent and in some cases as high as nine per cent per annum; that the department is informed by one large western trust company that they are only lending in many cases 25 per cent of the' actual carefully appraised valuation of their own inspector, and that the growth of the western provinces of Canada is proceeding with a rapidity which perhaps lias not been equalled by any other country in the world; that immigration is increasing; from year to year and the production of agricultural produce of all kinds is also steadily increasing; in fact the fertility of the west astonishes many otherwise well informed Canadians resident in Eastern Canada who perhaps have not visited that portion of the country; and that many Canadians in Eastern Canada are constantly visiting the west and upon their return express their amazement at the rapid growth of that portion of Canada.
7.	The department asked Mr. Preston under date of November 2, and Mr. Fortuyn under date of November 3, for the name of the Montreal correspondent.
8.	Mr. Fortuyn has not yet replied. Mr. Preston has cabled that full information had been forwarded by letter, which letter has now arrived; the name referred to is not the name of any person connected with the government, or any of its employees, or any one-for whom it may be responsible.



JAPANESE IMMIGRATION.

Mr. SMITH (Nanaimo):: 1.	How many Japanese have landed in Canada during the period of agreement with Japan concerning Japanese immigrants?
2.	Have any applications been made to the government to admit Japanese immigrants for special purposes?
3.	How many Hindoos have landed in Canada since April 1, 1909?


Mr. OLIVER:: 1.	1,457.
2.	Yes.
3.	15.	-



CANADIAN NAVAL SERVICE.

Mr. SPROULE:: 1.	What is the total co6t to Canada for each of the cruisers, the 'Niobe' and 'Rainbow,' lately purchased from the British Admiralty, including cost, if any for repairs and equip-to date and expenses for delivering them in Halifax and Esquimalt?
^her-e ?ny rePairs to be made on them yetr If so, what, and the estimated cost of each vessel?
3.. What is the estimated cost per annum for maintenance of these cruisers including repairs, equipment and salary of offioers, noncommissioned officers and men, of all grades or classes ?


Mr. BRODEUR:: 1.	Purchase price of 'Niobe' is $1,046,333.33. Purchase of 'Rainbow' $243,333.33. The purchase prices included cost of repairs, but certain additional expenses were incurred by the High Commissioner to fit the vessels as training ships. A statement of the cost is not available at present, no report having yet been received from the High Commissioner.
2.	No.
3.	Approximately:
'Niobe'	$630,500
'Rainbow'	 295,500


Mr. FOSTER:: 
Mr. BRODEUR:: 1.	'Rainbow'-purchase price. $ 243,333.33 'Niobe'-purchase price .. $1,046,333.33 The purchase prices included the cost of repairs.	*
Certain additional expenses were incurred by the High Commissioner to fit the vessels as training ships. A statement of the cost is not available at present, no report having yet been received from the High Commissioner.
2	'Niobe.' 'Rainbow.'
Maintenance of ship.. .. $155,000 $112,520 Officers and men, pay .. 225,000	106,800
Recruits' pay	
91,250	18,250Officers and men,	keep..	63,000	38,680Recruits' keep	
96,250	19,250


Ralph Smith: It is not proposed to train any cadets on board the ships.


Rear Admiral C.   E.@: Kingsmill, Director of Naval Service	5,000


Commander C.   D.@: Roper, Chief of
Staff	 3,500


Fleet Paymaster P.   J.@: Ling, Secretary to Naval Staff	 3,285


Engineer Commander P.  C. W.@: Howe,
Consulting Naval Engineer	 3,832


Lieutenant R.  M. T.@: Stephens, Director of Naval Gunnery	 3,376
4.	Specifications have been prepared and tenders will be called for shortly.


Mr. NORTHRUP:: 1.	What was the date of the construction of the 'Niobe' and the 'Rainbow' respectively?
2.	Were both in active service in the British navy when purchased? If either were not, why not?
3.	What is the tonnage of each, what is the complement of officers and men of each, and what is the average of crew to tonnage in each of such ships in the British navy?
4.	What are the rates of pay for officers and men on each of above ships?
5.	W hat are the corresponding rates of pay in the British navy?
6.	What is the number of naval staff, not including officers on ships, in Canada, their salaries, titles and duties?
7.	What is the price of each ship?
8.	What amount has been expended on each for alterations, guns and ammunition, coal, and repairs to date, respectively.
9.	What amount has been expended for officers' pay, men's pay, and supplies on said boats respectively to date?
10.	What is the total cost of said ships including every expenditure for purchase, equipment, alterations, repairs, and maintenance, also pay and maintenance of officers and. men to da te ?
11.	What is the estimated annual cost of each o.f said ships for fuel, officers and crew, maintenance and supplies, repairs and all other purposes? _


Mr. BRODEUR:: 1.	'Niobe' was put in commission in 1899. 'Rainbow' wras put in commission in 1892.
2.	'Niobe,' yes. 'Rainbow' in reserve. Unknown.
3.	' Niobe,' 11,000 tons; officers, 40; men, 659: 16-7 tons per man.
'Rainbow,' 3,600 tons; officers, 17; men, 252; 14.3 tons per man.
4 and 5. The answers to these questions are very long and should form a motion of the House.
Rates of pay of the Naval Service were published in 'Canada Gazette'- 30th July, 1910.
British rates of pay are to be found in the Navy List published by the British
Admiralty.
6. (1) Eight.
Director of Naval Service	$5,000
Chief of Staff	 3,500

Secretary to Naval Staff	 3,285
Consulting Naval Engineer	3,832
Director of Naval Gunnery	 3,376
Director of Studies-	 3,500
Chief Engineer, Halifax Dockyard.. 2,200
Boatswain, Halifax Dockyard		1,460
Duties to assist in organization and administration of Naval Service.
7.
'Niobe'	$1,046,333.33
'Rainbow'	 243,333.33
8,	9 and 10,
Officers' pay to Sept. 30, 1910.. $16,179.55 Men's pay to Sept. 30, 1910.. .. 31,654.11 The purchase price of the ships included repairs; certain additional expenses were incurred by the High Commissioner to fit the vessels as training ships. The statement of the cost is not available at present, no report having yet been received from the High Commissioner.
11.	'Niobe.' 'Rainbow.'
Officers and crew....$225,000	$106,800
Recruits	
91,250	18,250Officers and crew maintenance	
63,000	38,680Recruits' maintenance	[DOT]	*	96,250	19,250Fuel, supplies and repairs and all other purposes.	155,000	112,520


Mr. MACDONELL:: 1.	Is the following statement, contained in the 'Navy' of November, 1910:-true:-
' A protected cruiser of over 5,000 tons has been ordered for Canada.'
If so, what are the particulars of this order ?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: (1) This statement is incorrect.


Mr. MONK:: 1.	At what date was the keel of the 'Niobe' laid?
2.	What repairs did it undergo before its departure from England?
3.	What was the cost of the said repairs, and by whom paid ?
4.	What repairs did the 'Niobe' undergo since its arrival in Canada, and what was the cost of said repairs?


Mr. BRODEUR:: 1.	16th December, 1896.
2	and 3. The arrangement with the Admiralty was that the purchase price included the preparation of the ship for sea service; the Admiralty have not supplied details of any repairs, nor of their cost.
Certain additional expenses were incurred by the High Commissioner to fit the vessel as a training ship. A statement of the cost is not available at present, no report having yet been received from the High Commissioner.
4.	None.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: *
1.	Have any contracts been made for provisioning the 'Niobe' and the Rainbow'? If so, with whom, when, and for what length of
time?
2.	Were contracts invited for said contracts or arrangements? If so, when and in what manner ?
3.	By whom were such contracts or arrangements concluded and signed?


Mr. BRODEUR:: 1.	Yes, on 30th September, 1910, for fresh provisions for one year from 1st October, 1910.
List of firms:-
J. S. Turner, Davis & Fraser, A. S. Forestall, H. D. Grant, Nickerson & Hart,
E.	S. Tracy Mfg. Co., Wentwell's Ltd., G. Gregoire, J. F. Outhit, Halifax; W. J. Magee, J. Minehan, McMurray Bros., E. A. Macauley, F. Collins, P. A. Smith, St. John, N.B.; E. Wheatley & Co., Charlottetown, P.E.I.; Lemoine Bros., Brennan & Co., N. Sydney, N.S.; J. Drolet, N. Drolet,
F.	Dumas, Dominion Fish & Fruit Co., N. Degagne, Quebec; Laing Co., Damis Ltd., J. A. Gillies, Montreal; L. Goodacre & Sons, The Bakeries Ltd., Brown & Cooper, Esquimalt; Dominion Fish Co., Vancouver; B. Parker, Nanaimo; F. N. Clifton, Prince Rupert Dairy, Stewart & Moberley, Prince Rupert Fish Market, Prince Rupert.
2.	Tenders were called for by advertisement in the public press of the towns concerned in August last.
3.	By the Deputy Minister of the Naval Service.



PRINTING BUREAU INQUIRY.

Mr. BLAIN:: What amount of money has been lost to Canada, caused by the irregularities in the Printing Bureau?


Charles Murphy: Messrs John Hyde, chartered accountant, and Edmund Ryder, stationery expert, were appointed to ascertain the amount of the said loss, and their report which was included in the papers laid before the House on November 21, 1910, places the present net loss at $70,801.91.



GOVERNMENT SAVINGS BANKS.

Mr. SHARPE (Ontario):: 1.	What was the number of depositors^ in the Government Savings Departments on November 1, 1910?
2.	What was the total amount on deposit on November 1, 1910?
3.	How many persons have purchased the twenty-five year government bonds at 31 per cent?


Mr. PATERSON:: 1.	185,959. Including Government and Post Office Savings Banks.
2.	$57,088,780.94. Including Government and Post Office Savings Banks.
3.	Thirty.



THE WOODS' BUILDING.

Mr. SHARPE (Ontario):: 1.	Was there any written contract between the government and the Imperial Realty Com-

pany (or James W. Woods, Esq.) in regard to the lighting of the Woods and the Canadian buildings?
2.	If so, is this written contract in existence?
3.	Has the contract been cancelled by the government ?
4.	If so, with whom has the new contract for lighting these two. buildings been made?
5.	What was the annual expense for the lighting of these buildings under the old contract?
6.	What will be the annual expense under the new agreement?
7.	Has the government instituted proceedings, as promised by the Deputy Minister of Public Works in the Public Accounts Committee, against the Imperial Realty Company, for alleged collecting improperly an amount of over $6,000 per -annum on the lighting of these two buildings, being the difference in the amount paid by the government to the Imperial Eealty Company and the amount paid by the said Company to the city of Ottawa for performing the service? If not, why not?


William Pugsley: 1 and 2. The only thing in the form of a contract was an exchange of letters between the chief architect and Mr. J. W. Woods, which letters were, last session, produced before the Public Accounts Committee.
The bills rendered from time to time, to the department, accompanied by vouchers furnished by the Municipal Electric Department of Ottawa, charging Mr. Woods with the quantity of electricity consumed, at meter rates, and showing the identical amounts charged to Mr. Woods by the city as were charged to, and paid by, the government, also have an important bearing on the agreement to pay by meter rate.
3.	Yes, by mutual agreement.
4.	Contract made with the Municipal Electric Department of the city of Ottawa.
Woods.	Canadian
Building (Militia). Building.
1904-	05	
1,217.251905-	06	
592.671906-	07	
1,792.48	1,142.401907-	08	
2,133.56	1,430.691908-	09	
2,629.05	4,593.191909-	10	
3,686.22	4,176.13Total	$12,051.25	$11,342.41
0.
1,146 lamps, Canadian building.
950 "	Woods building (Militia).
2,096 "	at $2	$4,102 00
7. The Department of Public Works is not aware of what is the difference between the amount paid by the government to the Imperial Eealty Company and the amount paid by the company to the city of Ottawa for performing the service, as the city, although requested to do so as early as May last, has not furnished the department with a statement of amounts paid by the company and the only statements received from the city are the vouchers referred to in answer to Mr. SHARPE (Ontario).
questions 1 and 2. It is only fair to the Imperial Realty Company and the authorities of the city of Ottawa to say that they take the ground that the said vouchers were not rendered with any intention of deceiving the officers of the department as to the amount actually paid to the city, but were furnished to Mr. Woods in order to . show the quantity of electricity actually consumed, and that the city officials acted innocently, though admittedly improperly, in submitting the statements on the ordinary account forms, to be used as vouchers, which vouchers as above stated, purported to show, not only the total quantity of electricity consumed, but, the meter rate, and the indebtedness of Mr. Woods to the city, based on such meter rate.
The question of the right to recover any amount from the company has oeen submitted to the Department of Justice and is now under consideration by that department.



HUDSON BAY RAILWAY.

Mr. FOSTER:: 1.	Wbat number of acres of land have been disposed of by the government under the authorization of 1908 for the purpose of defraying the cost of construction of the Hudson Bay railway?
2.	What amount of money has been received to date, and what still remains to be paid therefor ?
3.	Is the money so far paid held in any fund or investment for the purposes of the sale? If not, to what uses has it been put?


Mr. OLIVER:: 1.	No land has been sold on special account of Hudson Bay railway construction.
2.	6,375,200 acres have been sold as purchased homesteads and pre-emptions up to 31st October, 1910. (Approximate.) Payments received on purchased homesteads, $627,738.26. Payments received on preemptions, $667,412.52.
Amount still to be paid on purchased homesteads, $1,100,317.74; on pre-emptions, $21,678,717.48. (Approximate.)
3.	Revenue collected has been deposited to the credit of consolidated fund on account of Dominion Lands Revenue.



LAKE WINNIPEG FISHERIES.

Mr. BRADBURY:: 1.	Hae the commission completed its investigation regarding the fisheries of Lake Winnipeg ?	.	.
2.	Has the commission made its report? If so, when will the report be laid on the table be presented to the House?
3.	If the commission has not made its report when will it do so, and when will the report be presented to the House?


Mr. BRODETJR:: 1.	Yes.
2.	The commission has not yet completed its report.
3.	It is expected to be finished before the end of December proximo, and will be laid on the table of the House immediately following its submission to me.



GOVERNMENT LOANS.

Mr. SHARPE (Ontario):: 1.	What loans in 1909 and 1910 were negotiated by the government hearing a rate of interest in excess of 3 per cent per annum?
2.	What was the total cost of negotiating each loan?
3.	What are the names of the financial agents in Canada who acted for the government?


William Paterson: 

THE HAGUE ARBITRATION.

Mr. SHARPE (Ontaria):: 1.	Were Great Britain's interests in the fisheries dispute with the United States lately before the Hague Arbitrators, confined to the Canadian government?
2.	Was the expense of the arbitration borne by Canada alone or was the expense divided?
3.	If divided, what was the share of Canada and the share of the other interests represented on the same side?
4.	How many counsel and agents represented the United States of America?
5.	How many counsel and agents represented Great Britain?


Mr. AYLESWORTH:: 1.	His Majesty's government at Westminster and the governments of Canada and of Newfoundland co-operated in preparing and presenting before the tribunal the case of Great Britain. The Canadian
Minister of Justice was appointed agent for Great Britain as representing the three governments in the matter.
2.	The expense is to be divided.
3.	The total amount of the expense has not yet been ascertained. The British government has paid the cost of the printing and the fees of some of the counsel. Such portion of the expense as falls upon Canada and Newfoundland is to be borne equally between them.
4 and 5. A list of the agents and counsel on both sides is presented herewith.
For the United States of America.


The Honourable Chandler P.: Anderson, agent;
The Honourable Elihu Root, senator of the United States from the State of New York, formerly Secretary of War and Secretary of State of the United States, counsel;
The Honourable George Turner, formerly a senator of the United States from the State of Washington, counsel;


The Honourable Samuel J.: Elder, counsel;


The Honourable Charles B.: Warren, counsel;
The Honourable James Brown Scott, solicitor for the Department of State of the United States, counsel;
The Honourable Robert Lansing, counsel;
Mr. Otis Thomas Cartwright, secretary of the agency.
For Great Britain.


The Honourable Allen B.: Aylesworth, King's Counsel, Minister of Justice of Canada, agent;
The Right Honourable Sir William Snowdon Robson, member of the Privy Council, King's Counsel, Member of Parliament, His Majesty's Attorney General, counsel;
The Right Honourable Sir Robert Banna-tyne Finlay, member of the Privy Council, King's Counsel, Member of Parliament, counsel;


The Honourable Sir Edward P.: Morris, Doctor of Law, King's Counsel, Prime Minister of Newfoundland;
The Honourable Donald Morison, King's Counsel, Minister of Justice, Newfoundland;


Fleet Paymaster P.   J.@: Winter, King's Counsel, counsel;


Fleet Paymaster P.   J.@: Ewart, King's Counsel, counsel;


Mr.   G@: Shepley, King's Counsel, counsel;


Sir H.: Erie Richards, King's Counsel, counsel;


Mr.  A. F.@: Peterson, King's Counsel, counsel;


Wisely.   N.@: Tilley, counsel;
Mr. Raymond Asquith, counsel;
Mr. Geoffrey Lawrence, counsel;
Mr. Hamar Greenwood, counsel;
Messrs. Blake and Redden, solicitors.


Rear Admiral C.   E.@: Dale, of the British Colonial Office.


Fleet Paymaster P.   J.@: Clarke, secretary of the agency.



CANADIAN NAVAL STATIONS.

Joseph Elijah Armstrong: When did the Canadian government decide to take over the naval stations of Esquimalt and Halifax?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: The government decided to take over Halifax on 23rd October, 1906, and Esquimalt on 14th November, 1908.


Mr. PAQUET:: 1.	Have the negotiations with the imperial government for the transfer of the naval station at Esquimalt to the Canadian government been yet concluded? If so, at what date?
2.	Have the negotiations with the imperial government for the transfer of the naval station at Halifax to the Canadian government been yet concluded? If so, at what date?


Mr. BRODEUR:: 1.	The negotiations for the transfer of the naval station at Esquimalt have been concluded. The imperial order in council has not yet reached the department, but the imperial authorities have made formal transfer on the 9th of November, 1910.
2.	The imperial order in council transferring the naval station at Halifax was signed on October 13, 1910.



WESTERN FARMERS AND IMMIGRATION.

Mr. ROCHE:: 1.	Is it the intention of the government to send any western farmers to the United Kingdom this winter in the interest of immigration ?
2.	If so, have any farmers been selected for that purpose?


Mr. OLIVER:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Yes.



COMMANDER ROPER.

Mr. MONK:: 1.	Is Commander Roper in the employ of the Canadian government or of any of its departments?
2.	If so, what is his position and what is his
salarv?
3.	What is the date of his nomination, and on whose recommendation was he appointed?


Mr. BRODEUR:: 1.	Yes, Department of the Naval Service.
2.	Chief of the Naval Headquarter Staff. $3,500 per annum.
3.	28th April, 1910. Recommended by the Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty.



MARINE SERVICE ON ST. LAWRENCE.

Mr. TAYLOR:: 1.	How many steamers, scows, floating work shops and other vessels have been employed Mr. AYLESWOETH.
in looking after the lights, buoys and other aids to navigation in the River St. Lawrence west of Montreal and the head of the lakes during the season of 1910 ?
2.	What are the names of the said steamers
and other vessels?	-
3.	How many men are employed on said steamers and other vessels?
4.	What is the total cost of said steamers and other vessels for the season of 1910, including fuel, salaries, supplies of all kinds, groceries, meats, bread, clothing and other dry goods, repairs to said steamers and expenses of all kinds in connection with the maintenance of said steamers and other vessels?
5.	What was the total cost for the maintenance of the lights and other aids to navigation over the same territory for the season of 1910, including the above, and the costs of light-keepers and all other expenses in connection therewith ?
6.	What was the total cost for the maintenance of the lights and other aids to navigation for the same territory for the season of
1895,	for costs of lightkeepers, supplies of all kinds, and costs of distributing the supplies and all other expenses in connection therewith?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: 1 and 2. C.G.S. 'Simcoe,' C.G.S. 'Scout,' C.G.S. 'Reserve,' scow 'Parry Sound,' scow 'Prescott.' C.G.S. 'Maisonneuve' employed on Ottawa river and Rideau river and lakes.	.
3.	71.
4.	$38,528.45. (1st April to 31st October. 1910.)
5.	$127,273.89. (1st April to 31st October, 1910.)
6.	$87,270,06. (1st July 1895 to 30th June,
1896.	)



NORTHWEST TERRITORY SCHOOL LANDS.

Mr. MCCARTHY:: 1.	Are school lands in the provinces of Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta only disposed of by public competitions?
2.	What is the complete procedure followed by the government in order to determine the desirability of offering such lands for schools?


Mr. OLIVER:: 1.	School lands in the provinces of Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta are only disposed of by sale at public auction, except in cases where application is made by railway companies to acquire school lands for right of way, station grounds and other similar purposes of the railway, in which cases the land required for these purposes is disposed of to the company under the provisions of the Railway Act, that is to say, on such terms as the Governor in Council may prescribe, the practice being to have the land applied for inspected and valued by an officer of the department and then to seek the consent of the Governor in Council for the sale of the land required for the purpose mentioned at the price de-

termined on; and also in eases where application is made by boards of trustees to acquire the land necessary for school sites in school sections. In such cases upon the application of the trustees being endorsed by the Minister of Education for the province in which the land is situated the land, not exceeding four acres, is sold to the board at the minimum price provided by the Dominion Lands Act in such cases, namely $10 per acre.
2.	All applications to have school lands offered for sale are referred to the superintendent of schools lands, Winnipeg, who, after investigation, reports whether or not he considers it would be in the interests of the School Lands Endowment Fund to offer the lands at public auction at the time proposed, and at the same time suggests the places and dates of sale.
If his recommendation is approved by the department the consent of the Governor General in Council is then sought and upon it being obtained a list of the undisposed of lands in the district referred to is furnished the superintendent of school lands, who then has such lands inspected and valued for the purpose of determining the upset price in each case.
It is also the practice before holding an auction sale of school lands to consult the government of the province in which the lands are situated and to submit to the Department of Public Works of that province a list of the lands to be offered.so that it may notify this department of any reservations necessary for public roads or other purposes, and for any remarks that may be considered necessary.



CUSTOMS ACT SCHEDULES.

Frederick William Borden: *..^ia'' , the average value for duty in 1910 and in 1896, respectively, of the unit of each article or commodity enumerated in the schedules of the Customs Act on which in both years an ad valorem duty was payable?


William Paterson: It would require considerable time to prepare a comparative statement of unit values of ad valorem imports in 1896 and 1910 from the customs records. There is no customs data available from which the prices of the same quality of goods can be accurately compared in the various lines during the two periods specified.
While it might be possible to answer this inquiry in the case of certain articles, it would clearly be impossible to do so for a large number of the commodities enumerated in the schedules of the Customs Acts, owing to the frequent changes that have occurred in manufacturers' standards and in the grades of articles demanded by consumers.
The fluctuations in values of several lines of goods during the periods referred to are shown in a report dealing with the comparative level of wholesale prices in Canada between 1890 and 1909, which has been published by the Department of Labour. See page 11 for table of prices of commodities by 13 groups. See page 284 for table of prices of certain commodities in detail. See page 48 for chart showing comparative prices in 1890-1899 in Canada, Great Britain and United States.
In any event I have to ask that the question, if pressed, be put in the form of a motion for a return, as the information desired covers many details.



ILLEGAL USE OF MAILS.

Mr. ARMSTRONG:: 1.	What action, if any, has the government taken with a view to putting <a stop to the use of His Majesty's mails for the ' furtherance of get rich quick ' schemes, such as the one conducted by Mr. Sheldon in Montreal, and the numerous wild oat ventures that have been foisted on our people during the past few years?
2.	Has the government made any effort to prosecute the guilty parties?


Sir WILFRID LAURIER:: 1.	In the case of illegal lotteries, or schemes devised and intended to deceive the public for the purpose of obtaining money under false pretenses, the power of the department is limited to declaring correspondence relating to such schemes not to be mailable matter, and to refusing to deliver it. This power the department exercises in every case where it is proven to the satisfaction of the department that such a scheme is in operation. The department has no power to institute a prosecution in such cases, but in all cases notifies the provincial authorities in whom are vested full powers of criminal prosecution.
2.	In the Sheldon case, the first notice received by the department that the business carried on by him was of a fraudulent character, was only received a day or two before Sheldon's departure from Montreal, and the case was then understood to be engaging the attention of the provincial authorities.



PECUNIARY CLAIMS CONVENTION.

Mr. MONK:: 1.	Does the Pecuniary Claims Convention
with the United States, signed on the 18th August last and now waiting ratification, include the claims commonly known as the Hay claims?	i
2.	Has any objection been raised to the inclusion of the said Hay claims in the said convention ?
3.	What is the cause of the delay in the ratification of the said convention of August 18 last, and is the delay caused by the imperial government, the United States government or the Canadian government?
4.	In case the said convention is ratified and completed, how will the arbitrators be named to settle the said claims?



5.	Has the Department of the Secretary of State received any claims under the terms of the said convention? If so, from whom, and what is the amount of each of the said claims?


Mr. AYLESWORTH:: 1.	The convention is of general character -not in terms mentioning any specific claims but providing a means for adjudicating any claims which it may hereafter be agreed should be submitted to arbitration.
2.	The government is not in a position to say whether the claims mentioned have or have not yet been under consideration.
3.	It has not yet been possible to submit the convention to the Senate of the United States. There has been no delay in the matter caused by the Canadian government.
4.	By agreement or in accordance with the provisions in that behalf of the general Hague Convention.
5.	Different departments of the government have for a long time past had notice or knowledge of a considerable number of claims, but no new claims have been received by the State Department since 18th August last.



DREDGING AT BATHURST.

Mr. CROCKET:: Has any contract been let for dredging in Bathurst harbour? If so, when was it let, to whom and at what prices?


William Pugsley: No dredging was performed by government dredge ' Nereus.'



IRRIGATION PROJECTS IN NORTHWEST TERRITORY.

Mr. MAGRATH:: 1.	Is the Honourable Senator Talbot an applicant for the purchase of a block of land in Alberta, to be developed by irrigation? If to, were any lands reserved, and when?
2.	What is the total area?
3.	What is the proposed expenditure on ditches ?
i.	Has any construction work yet been commenced in connection therewith?


Mr. OLIVER:: 1.	Hon. Senator Talbot applied on 3rd August, 1909, to purchase a tract of land under the irrigation system. This application was withdrawn in November, 1909, in favour of an application submitted by the Berry Creek Ranching Company, Limited. A tract of 4,431 acres in townships 22 and 23, range 12, west 4th meridian, was reserved on 4th January, 1910.
2.	4,431 acres, more or less.
3.	$8,000.
4.	No information available.



FREE ENTRY OF DUTIABLE GOODS.

Mr. REID (Grenville):: 1.	Does the government allow any goods to be imported into Canada through Customs Mr. MONK.
and entries made as ' free ', whether goods are dutiable or not, and whether such entries are made by private individuals or by any department of the government? If not, what date did such customs cease?
2.	When was the last entry made by a private individual of dutiable goods ' free 5 when sold to a department, and for what department?


Mr. PATERSON:: 1.	Free entries have not been authorized for goods because imported for the government, whether imported direct for the government or by private individuals for the use of the government, since 30th November, 1906, when the customs tariff of 1907 came into effect. The previous customs tariffs contained provisions for the free admission of articles imported by or for the use of the Dominion government, but the customs tariff of 1907 does not contain any such provision.
2.	Free entry of dutiable goods when imported by a private individual for the government, would not be made at a later date than 29th November, 1906. Particulars as to the last of such free entries are not at hand in the Department of Customs, as under the rules entry papers are kept on hand for three years only.



DR. KING'S RESIDENCE.

Joseph Elijah Armstrong: What is the total cost of the bouse occupied by Dr. King at the Experimental Farm, Ottawa ?


William Pugsley: 



TORONTO POST OFFICE.

Mr. MACDONELL:: 1.	How long has the addition adjoining the Toronto Post Office to the east been in progress?
2.	What was the estimated cost of this work, and what is the increased cost thereof?
3.	Were any changes made in the work during construction? If so, for what reason, was there any increase in the cost by reason thereof and who is responsible for such changes being made necessary?


Mr. PUGSLEY:: 1.	Contract awarded January 24, 1910.
2.	(a) Estimate prepared by department, $52,300; lowest tender, $42,785.
(b) No increase in cost.
3.	(a) Two piers were built in brick instead of concrete as specified, and the contractor had to remove same and he was allowed to use block stone; this work involved no additional cost.
(b) The contractor is responsible as he did not follow the plans and specifications.



CANADIAN FISHERIES PROTECTION SERVICE.

Mr. PAQUET:: 1.	How many Canadian vessels have we for the protection of our fisheries?
2.	How many Canadian vessels have we for the protection of our fisheries, respectively, on the Great Lakes, on the Pacific Coast, in the Gulf of St. Lawrence and on the Atlantic?
3.	What are the names of these vessels?


Mr. BRODEUR:: 1.	Twelve.
2.
Great Lakes	 1
Pacific coast	 5
Gulf St. Lawrence	 6
Atlantic coast	 6
3.	'Vigilant,' 'Kestrel,' 'Falcon,' 'Georgia,' 'Restless,' 'Princess,' 'Alceda,' Canada,' 'Constance,' 'Curlew,' 'Petrel,' 'Hudson.'


Mr. PAQUET:: 1.	Have we Canadian cruisers entirely manned by Canadian marines?
2.	What are the names of these cruisers?
3.	What is the cost of these vessels and where were they purchased?
4.	Where are they stationed?


Mr. BRODEUR:: 1.	The vessels of the Fishery Protection Service are manned entirely by Canadians.
Answers to 2, 3 and 4 attached.



PARCEL POST SERVICE.

Mr. ARMSTRONG:: 1.	Is there any loss to the Canadian government in carrying out the parcel post between the United Kingdom, Jamaica, Trinidad, St. Lucia, Barbados, Leeward Islands, Bahamas 26*
and Mexico? If so, what proportion thereof is borne by the Canadian government?
2.	Does the government give a rate of 12 cents per pound for carrying parcels with a minimum weight of 11 pounds to the above named countries, while at the same time in Canada a five pound parcel costs 80 cents to carry it from one door to another? If so, what is the reason therefor?


Sir WILFRID LAURIER:: 1.	The parcel post in both directions between Canada and the countries and colonies named, is carried by steamships subsidized for purposes of commerce by the Department of Trade and Commerce without additional cost to the Canadian government, which receives postage at the rate of 12 cents per pound on the parcels sent from Canada, and a suitable payment from the corresponding country for the sea transit of parcels coming to Canada.
2.	The government receives 12 cents per pound for carrying parcels not exceeding 11 pounds in weight to the countries named, as described above.
There is, strictly speaking, no domestic parcel post in Canada, as the means of conveyance procurable at a reasonable cost are not sufficient to permit such extension of the postal service at present.
P-ackages of merchandise, not exceeding 5 pounds in weight are, however, carried in the ordinary mails from any place in Canada to any other at a postage rate of 1 cent per ounce.



STAMP CANCELLING MACHINES.

Mr. ARMSTRONG:: 1.	What is the cost of stamp cancelling machines to the government?
2.	Does the government pay $100 rental each year on every stamp cancelling machine?


Sir WILFRID LAURIER:: 1.	No cost other than for rental.
2.	No. Yearly rental as follows:-
Hand machine, $100 per year.
1 small machine (electrically driven), $200 per year.
1 large machine (' Fliers '),	$400 per
year.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: How many stamp cancelling machines are rented by the government and what is the total rental paid for same?


Wilfrid Laurier: During fiscal year 1909-10.	56 machines,
total rental, $11,500.



RURAL MAIL DELIVERY.

Mr. ARMSTRONG:: 1. How many post offices have been closed owing to the establishment of rural free mail delivery routes, what are the name of each, and the amount saved in each case?

2. Where are the Canadian postage stamps and po6t cards manufactured, and what are the names of the firms who manufacture said stamps and cards?


Wilfrid Laurier: The following post offices have been closed owing the establishment of rural mail delivery, the offices being no longer required. The amount saved in each *case is the amount of the salary pf the
postmaster.
Name of Office	Postmaster's
and Province.	Salary.
Bull's Creek, N.B	
$35	00Calvert, Out	
35	00Central Keswick Ridge, N.B	
35	00Central Maugerville,	N.B	
35	00Chester, N.B	
35	00Dale, Ont	
35	00Dealtown, Ont	
35	00Duhamel, Alta	
35	00Elleneowan, Ont	
35	00Foley, Ont	
35	00Gilchrist. Ont	
35	00Lower Greenfield, N.B	
35	00Pembroke, N.B	
35	00Salisbury, Ont	
35	00Thornetown, N.B	
35	00


Wisely.   N.@: B	
35	00Woodbank, Ont	
35	002.	(a) Ottawa, (b) American Bank Note Company.



POST OFFICE REVENUE.

Mr. WILCOX:: What was the revenue of the post offices at Tilbury Centre, Ontario; Essex Centre, Ontario; Leamington, Ontario; and Walker-ville, Ontario; for the years 1904 and 1905, 1905-6, 1906-7, 1907-8, 1908-9, and 1909-10?


Wilfrid Laurier: Revenue of the post offices at Tilbury, Essex, Leamington and Walkerville, Ont., for the years 1904 to 1910:
Year.	Tilbury.	Essex.	Learning- ton.	Walker- ville.$ cts.	$ cts.	$ cts.	$ cts.1904-5	2,091 93	2,848 69	4,884	64	7,760 151905-6	1,241 48	2,942 68	4,936	69	8,632 091906-7.*....	2,205 24	2,397 55	3,900	41	7,293 571907-8	3,054 12	3,346 10	4,991	17	10,470 491908-9	2,965 35	3,488 41	5,086	73	10,579 011909-10	3,025 50	3,381 54	5,719	91	12,104 31
m i n ths.



IMMIGRATION.

Mr. PAQUET:: 1.	How many immigrants have we received from England, Scotland and Ireland during the fiscal year 1909-10?
2.	What amount has been expended in the British Isles for immigration during the fiscal year 1909-10?


Mr. ARMSTRONG.: 3.	What are the names cf our immigration agents in the British Isles, and what are their salaries ?


Mr. OLIVER:: 1.	England, 40,416; Scotland, 14,706; Ireland, 3,940.
2.	$240,715.52.
3.	England	Per annum.
J. Obed Smith, Assistant Superintendent of Emigration, London	$ 3,400
A. F. Jury, Liverpool	 2,000
G.	H. Mitchell, Birmingham..	1,600
A. McOwan, Exeter	 1,600
L. Burnett, York	 1,500
Scotland-
Malcolm McIntyre, Glasgow .. 2,000 John McLennan, Aberdeen .. . [DOT]	1,600
Ireland-
John Webster, Belfast	 2,000
Edward O'Kelly, Dublin	 2,000


Mr. PAQUET:: 1.	How many immigrants have we received from the United States during the fiscal year 1909-1910?
2.	What amount has been expended for immigration from the United States during the fiscal year 1909-1910 ?
3.	Who are our immigration agents in the United States, and what is the salary of each agent ?


Mr. OLIVER:: 1.	103,798.
2.	$234,347.46.
3. -	Per a:
M. V. Mclnnes, Detroit, Michi-
James Grieve, Spokane, Washington	 2,100
J. S. Crawford, Kansas City, Missouri	 1,620
E. T. Holmes, St. Paul, Minnesota	 2,180
C. J. Broughton, Chicago, Illinois	 1,800
W. V. Bennett, Omaha, Nebraska	 1,620
J. M. McLachlan, Watertown,
South Dakota	 1,700
C. Pilling, Grand Forks, North
Dakota	1,800
W. H. Rogers, Indianapolis, Indiana	 1,750
H.	M. Williams,	Toledo,	Ohio..	1,620
C. A. Laurier, Marquette, Michigan . . .. '	 1,620
Benj. Davies, Great Falls, Montana	 1,620


Geo.   A.@: Hall, Milwaukee, Wisconsin	 1,800
Thos. Hetherington, Boston,
Massachusetts	1,200
J. B. Carbonneau, Jr., Biddeford, Maine..		 900
Elzear Gingras, Providence,	R.I.	1,000R. Laurier, Saginaw,	Michigan.	1,100
Geo. Aird, Toledo	 1,200
A. J. S. Copp, Boston	 1,200
C. W. Sutter, Indianapolis.. ..	1,200
Alex. Ayotte, Great Falls.. ..	1,000


Mr. PAQUET:: 
Mr. OLIVER:: 1.	910.
2.	$0,260.48.
3.	D. Treau de Coeli-salary, $1,600 per annum.


Mr. PAQUET :: 1.	How many immigrants have we received from France during the fiscal year 1909-10?
2.	What amount has been expended during
the fiscal year 1909-10 for French immigration?	*
3.	Who are the immigration agents of the Canadian government in France, and what is the salary of each agent?


Mr. OLIVER:: 1.	1,727.
2.	$10,750.71.
3.	Paul Wiallard, $3,000 per annum. GRAND TRUNK TRAINMEN'S STRIKE.


Mr. MONK:: 1.	In the strike of Grand Trunk trainmen during July and August, 1910, what effort did the government make to get a satisfactory settlement of the strike?
2.	What was the basis of the settlement so far as the grievance of the trainmen was concerned?
3.	How many of the men out at that time were reinstated in their former positions?
4.	How many have not been reinstated, and why not?


Mr. KING:: 1.	The government from the outset offered its good offices towards effecting a settlement of the dispute and put forth every effort to secure the consent of the parties to a reference of the dispute to arbitration. The effort to secure a settlement by arbitration was not successful owing to the unwillingness at the outset of both parties and subsequently of one of the parties to agree to such a reference. The dispute was finally settled through the governments' friendly mediation requested by one of the parties and accepted by both.
2.	The basis of settlement is contained in the following agreement signed by the representatives of the parties:-
By way of settlement of the existing difficulties :-
1. The company will put back as soon as possible the men, other than those who have
teen or may be found guilty of acts of violence or disorderly conduct, the understanding being that there is to be no coercion or intimidation used towards the new men.
2.	The company will put into effect from May 1, 1910, the rates named in schedule of rates dated July 18, 1910, those rates to be embodied in the present schedules now in effect on this line, it being understood that those rates shall in no instance effect a reduction in any existing rate.
3.	The company will, on January 1, 1912, make effective in train and yard service on the Grand Trunk railway the rates of pay and the rules contained in the schedule or agreement on that date in effect on the lines of the Canadian Pacific railway east of Fort William.
The three above propositions shall apply also to the Central Vermont Railroad Company, the said Railway Company to be substituted for the Grand Trunk Railway Company, and the Rutland Railroad Company to be substituted for the Canadian Pacific Railway Company wherever the same are used or understood in the above. (In the case of the Central Vermont, by the ' schedule of rates dated July 18, 1910,' is meant the schedule issued by the management of that company since July 1.)
The company gave an assurance that by * as soon as possible ' in section 1 of this agreement was meant a period not exceeding three months from the date of settlement.
3.	It was estimated that about 3,450 men went out at the time of the strike. From representations received from representatives of the men it would appear that at the expiration of three months from the date of settlement about 3,200 had been reinstated. Others have' since been restored to the company's service.
4.	It has been variously estimated by the representatives of the men that between 150 and 250 men have not been reinstated. The reason for their non-reinstatement, as given by the company, is contained in the following words of a communication from Mr. Hays, president of the company, dated November 10:
In the opinion of the officers of this company our undertaking to re-employ all who were not found guilty of acts of violence or disorderly conduct has been complied with.
The representatives of the men allege that the majority of those who have, not been reinstated have in no way been guilty of acts of violence or disorderly conduct. The representations of the men in this regard have been made known to the company by the government, and the president has undertaken to have each case that may be brought to his attention made the subject of special investigation by himself and other officers of the company.


Mr. LENNOX:: 1. Was the Minister of Labour a party in negotiating and concluding a settlement of the

recent strike of tlie conductors and brakesmen of the Grand Trunk railway, between the company and the men?
2.	Is the result in harmony with the anticipations of the minister, as entertained by the minister at the time of the settlement?
3.	Is the company, in the opinion of the minister, now living up to the terms and spirit of this agreement?


Mr. KING:: 1. Yes.
2 and 3. The minister did not anticipate, at the time of settlement, that any difficulties would arise in the carrying out of the terms of the agreement reached. According to the representations received from the men, some of their number have not been reinstated in accordance with the terms of the agreement. These representations have been made known to the company by the minister, and the cases so reported are being made the subject of further investigation by the company at the present time.


Mr. LENNOX:: What steps, if any, has the Minister of Labour taken to have the Grand Trunk Railway Company carry out its agreement to reinstate the striking conductors and brakesmen within ninety days, and particularly what has the minister done since the expiry of said ninety days to definitely ascertain whether or how far the company has lived up to its agreement, and to compel the company to keep faith with the strikers?


Mr. KING.: The minister has been in close touch with both the Grand Trunk Railway Company and the representatives of the men concerned in the recent strike, and has by correspondence and personal interviews taken up with the company all representations made to him as to noncompliance by the company with the terms of its agreement. The minister has also endeavoured to effect between the company and the men some arrangement whereby any existing differences might be left to the arbitrament of some third party. As the 'result of representations made by the minister and the government the president of the company has undertaken to have each case of alleged non-compliance with the terms of the agreement that may be brought to his attention made the subject of special investigation by himself and other officials of the company.



WEST COAST TRAIL ON VANCOUVER ISLAND.

Mr. BARNARD:: 1- What amount has been expended upon the West Coast Trail on Vancouver Island?
2.	lor what distance and between what points has the trail been completed ?
3.	What distance is under construction?
I. What will be the length of the trail when completed?


Mr. LENNOX.: 5.	What is the total estimated cost of the work when completed?
6.	What rates of wages are paid to men employed, having regard to the various capacities in which they are employed?
7.	Who is immediately in charge of the work on the ground?


Mr. BRODEUR:: 1.	$153,755.48.
2.	The trail is now practically completed between Banfield creek and Clanewah, a distance of 16 miles.
3.	The above distance only is under construction at present.
4.	The department is now considering the advisability of extending further the above trail.
5.	This cannot be estimated until the question of extension is settled.
6.	Foremen, $5.00 per work day; winch-men, $4.00 per work day; workingmen, $3.00 per working day.
7.	Head foreman on work is A. Barnes. The work is being done under the personal supervision of H. C. Killeen, district engineer of the Department of Marine.



PRE-EMPTIONS AND PURCHASED HOMESTEADS. -

Mr. LAKE:: 1.	What has been the total acreage of preemptions and purchased homesteads entered for in each of the provinces of Saskatchewan and Alberta, respectively, from the date of the passing of the Dominion Lands Act, 1908, to the present date?
2.	What total amount of money receivable by the government does this represent in each province ?
3.	What is the annual amount of interest receivable in respect of the same in each province ?


Mr. OLIVER:: 1.	Saskatchewan. Alberta.
Acres. Acres.
Pre-emptions	 3,604,960	2,256,320
Purchased homesteads 377,920	136,000
2.	Saskatchewan. Alberta.
Principal and interest $14,765,736	$8,910,000
Saskatchewan. Alberta.
3.	Pre-emptions.
1st	year (1911.. ..$540,744.00	$338,448.002nd	year. 540,744.00	338,448.003rd	year. 540,744.00	338,448.004th	year. 360,496.00	225,638.005th year	
288,396.80	172,505 606th year	
216,297.60	135,379.207th year	
144,198.40	90,252.808th year	
72,099.20	45,126.40Purchased homesteads. Saskatchewan. Alberta. 1st vear (1911) .. . .$ 37,792.00	$ 13,600.002nd	year.. 30,233.60	10,880.003rd year	
22,675.20	8,160.004th year	
15,116.80	5,440.005th year	
8,558.40	2,720 00
These figures are only given approximately; moreover, they are liable to

change from day to day as new entries are made and cancellations effected. They have been made up to the 31st October last.



MR. L. F. CLARRY.

Mr. LENNOX:: 1.	Has the government paid Mr. L. F. Clarry, a solicitor formerly of Hastings, any money for alleged professional services since the 14th day of April last? If so, what sum?
2.	Is the government indebted to Mr. Clarry ?


Mr. AYLESWORTH:: 1.	On 10th June, 1910, $597.92 was sent to
Mr. Clarry and on 27th June, 1910, $20.06 was sent to Mr. Clarry, in payment in each case for services rendered before 14th April last.	,	,	, ,
2.	Not so far as the Department of Justice is aware.


Haughton Lennox: X. Since the discussion in the House and the disclosures in the Public Accounts Committee last session re Mr. L. F. Clarry, a solicitor employed by the government, has the government adopted any practice, or taken any measures or precautions to prevent solicitors from acting for the government, and for parties having claims against the government, at the same time? If so, what has been done and if not, why not?
2. Has the government or the department of Justice done anything by way of carrying out the pledges of ministers of the Crown given to the House in the discussion referred to?


Mr. AYLESWORTH :: 1. The fact that a solicitor is acting for the government in examining the title of one piece of property or in paying a claim made against the government in respect of such piece of property would not seem to afford any objection to the same solicitor acting for the owner of an altogether different piece of property in preferring a claim against the government in respect of such different piece of property and such an occurrence could not be prevented without paying to all solicitors employed for any purpose by the government an annual general retaining fee which course the government has not adopted and is not prepared to adopt.
The intentions stated by the Minister, of Railways and by the Minister of Justice in the discussion referred to have been fully carried out by them.



EASTERN DREDGING COMPANY.

Oswald Smith Crocket: Have any contracts been let during the current year to the Eastern Dredging Company? If so, for what places and at what prices ?


William Pugsley: At Grand Dune flats, Miramiehi bay,
N.B., at 11 cents per cubic yard.



DREDGING CONTRACTS.

Oswald Smith Crocket: Have any contracts been awarded to the firm of A. & R. Loggie for dredging during the current year? If so, for what places, at what prices and what is the estimated total money value of each?


William Pugsley: Dalhousie, N.B., rock, $5 per cubic yard. All other materials 29i cents per cubic yard.



ST. JOHN RIVER CHANNEL.

Oswald Smith Crocket: ,
1.	In what year was work commenced on
the survey of the St. John River channel between Fredericton and Woodstock?	_
2.	For how many seasons has it been continued?
3.	Is it yet completed?	, .
4.	How much money has been voted by parliament for the purpose?
5.	How much has been expended on the work to date?


Mr. PUGSLEY:: 1.	1908.
2.	1908-09-10.
3.	Field work completed.
1908	$5,000 appropriated.
1909		   5,000	"
1910		5,000
In^ 1908	$ 3,978 85 expended.
In 1909	
3,356	33In 1910	
3,731	36	"Total	$11,066.54



THREE RIVERS HARBOUR.

Mr. AMES:: Has any interest been paid by the Three Rivers Harbour Commission	during	the
calendar year 1910? If so, how much and when ?


William Pugsley: No.



DESTINATION OF IMMIGRANTS.

Mr. LAKE:: 1.	When did the immigration branch begin to take cognizance of the destination of immigrants arriving in Canada?
2.	What has been the destination by provinces of the immigrants for each year for which the branch has information within the last ten years?


Mr. OLIVER.: 1.	In 1894.	.
2.	See statement attached.
Mr. OLIVEK,
Immigration to Canada, by Provinces, from July 1, 1900 to March 31, 1910.
' 	
-	Maritime Provinces.	Quebec.	Ontario.	Manitoba.	Saskatchewan.	Alberta.	British Columbia and Y ukon.	Not Shown.	Totals.Fiscal Year 1900-1901.. .1 1901-1902	
.. 1902-1903... . t. 1903-1904	
it 1904-1905	
.1 1905-1996	
Fiscal Period (9 mos.) 190G-1907.. Fiscal Year 1907-1908	
.. 1908-1909	
* 1909-1910	
Totals	2,144 2,312 5,821 5,448 4,128 0,381 6,510 10,360 6,517 10,644	10,216 8,817 17,040 20,222 23,666 25,212 18,319 44,157 19,733 28,524	6,208 9,798 14,854 21,266 35,811 52,746 32,654 75,133 29,265 46,129	11,254 17,422 39,535 34,911 35,387 35,648 20,273 39,789 19,702 21,049	1 2 4 4 3 28,728 15,307 30,590 22,146 29,218	4,160 2,199 3,898 0,397 9,289 26,177 17,559 31,477 27,651 42,509	2,600 3,483 5,378 6,994 6,008 12,406 13,650 30,768 21,862 30,721	2,567 3,348 1,838 1,093 1,977 1,766 395 195 32	49,149 67,379 12S,364 130,331 146,266 189,064 124,667 262,469 146,908 208,79460,265	215,906	323,864	274,970	431,305	133,870	13,211	1,453,391
05
815	COMMONS



GOVERNMENT GOODS PURCHASED IN UNITED STATES.

Mr. BLAIN:: 1. What amount of money was paid by the government for goods purchased in the United States of America during the last fiscal year?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: The Department of Marine and Fisheries paid $18,938.84. The articles purchased from the United States could not be obtained in Canada. They consisted of meteorological instruments, wireless telegraph equipment, steam steering gear, a special motor life-boat, &c. The motor life-boat was by far the largest item costing in the vicinity of $8,000. This boat was built in accordance with the specification of the United States government and it was considered advisable to have at least the first one built by the firm which constructs the boats for the United States, namely, the Electric Launch Company, New Jersey.



MINISTERS' TRAVELLING EXPENSES.

Mr. SHARPE (Ontario):: 1.	What ministers were abroad in 1908, 1909 and 1910 on public business?
2.	What expenses were incurred by each while engaged on public business?
3.	What persons, if any, accompanied each minister on public business whose expenses were paid by the government?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: So far as the Department of Marine and Fisheries is concerned:
1.	Hon. L. P. Brodeur.
2.	$4,123.76.
3.	The Hon. L. P. Brodeur was accompanied by his private secretary Mr. G. O. Morisset and Rear-Admiral C. E. Kings-mill.

Tuesday, December 6, 1910.