1. Does the Department of Marine and Fisheries intend to make any improvements at the Port Daniel West hatchery this season for the purpose of securing a better result than that obtained last year, and what are these improvements?

2. At what distance from the hatchery did the officer in charge reside during the past season, and did the staff employed there have any previous experience at all in their work?

1. An extra strainer is being attached to the intake pipe, and a different kind of faucets and tubes will be used and the fry tanks rearranged.

2. His house is at Port Daniel Centre, about six miles from the hatchery. He spent twelve hours daily at the hatchery throughout the season. Four of the staff had previous experience.

Mr. PARDEE:

I desire to call the attention of the Minister of Marine to the following telegram which has been received:

Marine Department accepted bid of Kenneth Frazier for Lake Erie and Detroit river buoy service. Frazier's tug John Monk, not registered Canadian vessel as required by specifications, my tender lowest complying with specifications in every respect, enter protest against awarding contract to Frazier; obtain explanation why department's action.

Is the statement in this telegram true, that the tug which has been awarded this service is an American bottom?

Mr. HAZEN:

This is a question that might properly, I think, be given the ordinary notice of. I may say, however, that the Department of Marine asked for tenders for the buoy service on the Detroit river and lake Erie, and the lowest tenderer was Mr. Kenneth Frazier, who stated that he would perform the service with a tug called the Monk, and he would have it Canadian registered. I was informed at the department this morning that steps were being taken to have that tug registered in Canada. In order to be registered in Canada, it will have to be brought into Canada and the duty upon it would have to be paid. Then it would have to be examined by the technical officers of the department to see if it is such a tug as could be registered in Canada. These are the facts, so far as I know, at the present moment.

Mr. W. T. WHITE:

I do not assent to the view that my hon. friend is not misrepresenting my argument, but of course I do him the justice of saying that he is not wilfully misrepresenting me.

Mr. TURRIFF:

All right; we will leave it at that-difference of opinion. My hon. friend the Minister of Finance, during the course of his speech, told us that he himself made an investigation of the books of the different manufacturers of agricultural implements in Canada as to whether or not they were making undue profits. When he came to that part of his speech, I asked him a question. My hon. friends opposite seemed to resent my doing so. I do not think my hon. friend the Minister of Finance resented it at all. He had no reason to complain of the number of questions asked or the manner in which they were asked. I was simply seeking for information; but my hon. friend the Minister of Finance certainly satisfied the members behind him, because he absolutely refused to answer my question. He did some very fancy sidestepping and also took considerable credit to himself for being an expert auditor. I believe the hon. minister is fully entitled to take credit to himself for being an expert auditor. If I had to make a choice of hon. members for that class of work, I would choose my hon. friend the Minister of Finance. He has youth, ability, brains and experience; and when he made an audit of those books, he knew something about them. The question I asked was a very mild, modest one. I will read it to the House. My hon. friend had just spoken as follows:

We have made an inquiry as to the factory cost of production of the principal agricultural implements in Canada and the United States. We have examined the balance sheets 6f manufacturers with the idea of ascertaining what their position is and whether or not they are making undue profit upon their business.

MR. TURRIFF: Would the hon. gentleman state whether, in making that examination, he also examined as to what amount of cash was in the stock and what amount of water?

Of what use is an examination as to the profits of any manufacturing concern unless one knows how much money they have in their business and how much their paid-up stock represents in cash and in water. This is the reply of my hon. friend:

MR. WHITE : The' examination as to selling price was made hy a trusted official of the Customs Department, Mr. Thomas Costello. He examined into the cost of production. I examined the balance sheets myself and I think, without paying myself too much of a compliment, that I know something about a balance sheet. After having given this matter the most careful and painstaking consideration, we are satisfied that on only one range of implements can the duty be lowered without violation of the fiscal policy of reasonable protection which is designed to encourage and promote the establishment of industries in Canada.

I venture to say that, when my hon. friend was through with that examination, he had a very good idea of the financial conditions as shown on the books of the companies; but if he did not make an investigation as to the amount of water and of cash put originally into what is represented to-day by paid-up stock, he knew absolutely nothing about what profits the companies were making. Will my hon. friend say now whether or not in that examination he looked into the question as to how much 'water and how much cash were represented in the paid-up stock of the company.

Mr. WHITE:

I am not called upon to answer my hon. friend, but I shall be very glad to do so as a matter of courtesy. The financial position of any company, the amount that is owed to its banks, the financial obligations that confront it are shown in its balance sheet, quite apart from any question of stock; that is to say, whether an institution owes 55,000,000 or $20,000,000 is shown by its statement. Where I regarded it as necessary, I inquired into the matter to which my hon. friend has drawn our attention, and I made the necessary inquiries to satisfy myself. In connection with some of the companies, that question as to watered stock did not arise for the reason that no dividends whatever were paid on the stock that in any degree represented water.

Mr. WILLIAM SMITH:

Try it again.

Mr. TURRIFF:

My hon. friend across the way says, ' Try it again.' I do not have to try it again. My hon. friend has acknowledged that only an occasional investigation was made in that respect. Was evidence taken under oath on that investigation? No, it was not. Will my hon. friend put that information before the

House? No, he will not do that. I did not expect that he would. I want to tell my hon. friend and the House and the country that the answer he has given may apply to some manufacturers of agricultural implements that are not paying dividends, but it does not apply to the main manufacturers of agricultural implements. The Massey-Harris combine was effected many years ago. A few years afterwards I was told by one of the original holders of the stock that went into the combine that that stock did not represent fifty cents on the dollar in cash, although it was made to look as if it did. One of the holders of stock told me how it was done. Any hon. member who has had anything to do with agricultural implements or who is a farmer knows that a company like the Massey-Harris company, with hundreds and hundreds of agencies from the Atlantic to the Pacific, must keep at every agency hundreds of dollars' worth of repairs. Every year certain of their implements are changed. New patents are got out and the old repairs become junk, worth from $10 to $14 a ton for scrap iron; but those repairs were put into this merger at their retail list price, representing thousands of dollars a ton. I have sold too many repairs for binders and other machinery not to know. Repairs that would not weigh half a pound or a quarter of a pound retailed at 25 cents and some of them at $1 or $1.50. In that way the companies were able to put in value as it were, but were really putting in water to the extent of over 50 per cent. For years after that, the Massey-Harris company paid 14 per cent on their watered stock. Then when profits became too great, I understand that a stock dividend was made, so that the company would not show too great profits. Let us see what the prices of agricultural implements in Canada are compared with the prices in the United States.

Mr. MEIGHEN:

What year was that

when my hon. friend got that information from the manufacturers?

Mr. TURRIFF:

It was many years ago, and the information was given me in the ordinary way of conversation by one of the members of one of the original companies.

Mr. ARTHURS:

Was it given under oath?

Mr. TURRIFF:

It was just as much under oath as was the investigation of my hon. friend the Minister of Finance. The gentleman who was telling me this did not think there was any necessity of

making a statement under oath; he was quite satisfied.

Mr. WHITE:

Was the conversation to which my hon. friend refers had prior to 1911?

Mr. TURRIFF:

Yes.

Mr. MEIGHEN:

Did you communicate it to the Government?