the chair.

Hon. Mr. SMITH explained that the Act provided that ship-owners instead of paying twice to this fund should pay three times each year. The present fund was insufficient to meet the expenditure. Last year the amount received was $41,500; the amount expended, $66,443. The Government did not consider this a fair charge on the revenue, and therefore increased the fees.

Mr. FORBES wished to know the rea

son for imposing this charge three times a year instead of twice. Would it not be better to increase the present amount and collect it twice in the year?

Hon. Mr. SMITH said by adopting this mode the tax was placed mainly upon large ship-owners-steamships for instance. If the amount were increased and the col

lections made only twice in the year, the tax would fall on sailing vessels, which were not so well able to meet it.

Hon. Mr. MITCHELL protested against this legislation which had a tendency to increase the charges on shipping. He was quite surprised to find this fund falling behind. His recollection of it was that it about met the expenditure. Our tonnage could not afford to sustain any heavier charges than at present, if it was to compete successfully with the shipping of other countries. The Government should continue the policy which the late Admnisitration inaugurated and which built up the shipping interest of Canada. Instead of Hon. Mr. Smith.

increasing the charges on shipping the late Government had diminished them. While he would not oppose the resolution, he would look into the matter and hold himself free to oppose the Bill when it came before the House.

Mr. JONES (Halifax) reminded the hon. member for Northumberland that the policy of the late Government was not on all occasions to dimish the charges on shipping. In this very fund and in the appointment of harbor masters they had increased the tax on ship-owners.

Hon. Mr. SMITH said his sympathies were entirely with the shipping interest, but it was not the only interest in this Dominion. He saw no reason why it should not sustain this fund. That it was necessary would be seen from the fact that during the last three years the expenditure had increased very considerably over the receipts. In 1872 the receipts were $34,911; expenditures, $38,947. In 1873 receipts, $37,136; expenditures, $41,016. In 1874, receipts, $41,500; expenditures, $66,443. It would be seen that the expenditure was going on progressively, and he did not think this House would say this fund should be maintained out of the revenue of the country. If it was to be sustained at all, it was evident that the fees must be increased.

Hon. Mr. MITCHELL said this was a

proof that the fund was not properly managed by the present Government. The hon. Minister of Marine had explained that by collecting the revenue three times a year instead of twice it would bear less heavily on sailing ships than on steamers. The hon. gentleman owned sailings vessels but did not own steamers, and it would, no doubt, suit him very well. But he (Mr. MITCHELL) owned steamers, and would prefer to see these fees collected twice in the year. He could not understand how there was such a deficit in the fund. During the seven years while he managed it, the receipts exceed the expenditures every year except the last, when there was a slight deficit, but he did not ask to have the charge increased to meet that deficiency. The hon. Minister of Marine ought to give some explanation to this House why the expenditures had so largely increased.

Hon. Mr. SMITH called attention to the fact that sailing vessels did not average more than two visits to a port yearly.

With respect to the increased expenditure for the relief of sick mariners, that was a matter for which he could not be held responsible, because there had been an additional number of patients. If the hon. member for Northumberland could satisfy the House that no necessity existed for additional taxation, it would not be imposed.

terests

Hon. Mr. TUPPER concurred in the remark that the hon. Minister of Marine was not responsible for an increase in the number of invalids; but his statistics proved that the increase was exceptional, and being exceptional, did not warrant the severe remedial measures proposed. If it were true, as the hon. Minister had declared, that the shipping inshould not be protected more than any other interest, why did the Province of Canada when it had the greatest difficulty in making the receipts meet the expenditure, resolve that everything which entered into the construction of fitting up ships should be entered free of duty, while other goods were charged from 20 to 25 per cent. duty. The policy of the late Government was that of fostering and protecting our shipping interests. but the present Administration reversed that policy, and had imposed a large amount of taxation on shipping. and, in accordance with that policy the Government must go a step further and charge ships with all dues necessary for the maintenance of the light-house service. If ever there was a time when the Government should have avoided entering upon this policy it was at the present time, because the shipping trade was depressed, and the changed value of freights all over the world rendered ship-owners less able to bear the increased charges. The ad-do tion by the United States of a policy similar to that entered upon by the present Government had resulted in American shipping being almost driven from the seas, and the Senate and Congress in order to revive their shipping trade had been engaged upon and arranging business and other schemes for the encouragement of the shipping interest. In view of the leading position which Canada occupies in the carrying trade of the world, it behooved the Government to carefully consider what means could be adopted to promote and foster our shipping interests Hon. Mr. Smith.

-a policy which had been followed during many years-rather than to seek to re-impose duties which had long since been removed.

Hon. Mr. SMITH said he was prepared to answer the observations of his hon. friend when the Bill came up for the second reading, which was a more fitting time. He might say, however, that so far from this measure injuring the shipping interest it would be a benefit to it.

Mr. FORBES observed that American fishermen sick or distressed were thrown upon our shores, and we were bound to take care of them. He thought, therefore, American shipping should be made to contribute their share.

were

Hon. Mr. SMITH said sailors paid taxes for this purpose, and we obliged to take care of sick and distressed seamen left upon our shores no matter where they came from.

Sir JOHN A. MACDONALD said the proper time for discussing all the details of this measure was when the House was in committee, for the very object of going into committee was that there might be the fullest discussion and interchange of opinion.

Hon. Mr. MACKENZIE said even the increased fees proposed could not meet the expenditure of maintenance, which last year was $66,000 while the revenue was only $41,000. In addition to this large sums were voted yearly for the building of hospitals for sick and distressed

MACKENZIE) could hardly conceive it possible that a fair narration of the circumstances had been given. All that he knew was that the late Government had called for tenders for 40,000 tons of steel rails and that they were delivered. That was before the present Government came into power, and he knew nothing further on the subject. The hon. member should put a motion on the paper if he wanted information.

Hon. Mr. MITCHELL said he would do so, but, as it was late in the session, he hoped the information would be furnished without the motion.

Hon. Mr. MACKENZIE-I will furnish every possible information that the hon. gentleman wants.•

The item was concurred in.

the Government would have to consider the question very carefully before coming to a decision.

Mr. LANTHIER-Have the Government prepared any estimate of the cost of constructing the canal on the north shore ?

Hon. Mr. MACKENZIE-Yes, but it is still a matter of departmental confidential statements.

Item concurred in.

On the item of $2,000,000 for Welland Canal,

Hon. Mr. MACKENZIE, in reply to Mr. MCCALLUM, said the entire estimated expenditure for deepening the navigation to 14 feet at Port Colborne harbor was about $300,000, and for deepening and enlarging the canal, from the junction up

On item 71, for increased accommodation, Intercolonial Railway, at St. John, N. B., $200,000,

Mr. DOMVILLE wished to know if it was intended to purchase the wharf at deep water which the Premier had examined personally and of which he had expressed anything but a favorable opinion. Hon. Mr. MACKENZIE said he was not in a position to reply to the question at present. He had a telegram from the Mayor of St. John to say that a communication was on its way from that city. He would find some opportunity of making the House aware of its contents as soon as possible.

The item was concurred in.
Item 73 was concurred in without dis-

cussion.

On item 74, St. Lawrence Canals, $1,000,000,

Mr. LANTHIER asked if the Government had arrived at any decision in the selection of the side of the river on which the canal at Beauharnois was to be located, or if the Premier would wait until Mr. PAGE made his report, before coming to any conclusion.

Hon. Mr. MACKENZIE said the Government had not decided as to whether the existing canal should be enlarged, or a new one should be built on the north shore. As the hon. gentleman knew, he (Mr. MACKENZIE) was always an advocate of the latter plan, but as it would cost something like $1,000,000 more to build the new canal than to improve the old one,

Hon. Mr. Mackenzie.

of water, would probably cost two millions. In reply to the hon. member for Monck, who was particularly interested in obtaining information as to the probability of using Port Maitland as the terminus on Lake Erie, he might state that the distance was ten miles further to Port Maitland than to Port Colborne, and every one knew that a heavy expenditure would be incurred by those ten miles of additional canal navigation. Besides the cost of deepening and enlarging the channel, from the junction to Port Maitland, so as to enable vessels drawing 12 feet to reach the harbor, would be considerably over twice that which would be required to reach Port Colborne from the junction, or, in other words, a little over four millions. To deepen the harbor at Port Maitland would cost about $100,000, and to obtain 14 feet of water in the canal would cost three quarters of a million additional; or, altogether, about five millions, toobtain a depth of 14 feet from the junction to Port Maitland, including the harbor. In other words, it would cost two millions more to obtain the accommodation at Port Maitland than it would cost to obtain it at Port Colborne. He understood and quite appreciated the necessity of obtaining 14 feet of water at the earliest practicable moment, but after careful consideration of the whole question he had come to the conclusion that it would be wise to obtain 12 feet with the Lake Erie water introduced in the meantime : afterwards as the necessities of commerce seemed fairly to demand it we could