1901-04-09

[Stage Direction]
Mr. SPEAKER informed the House that he had received from the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery, a certificate of the return of James Halliday, Esq., member elect for the electoral district of North Bruce.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. James Halliday, member for the electoral district of North Bruce, introduced by Mr. Borden (Halifax) and Mr. Sproule.

Hon. JOHN HAGGART (South Lanark) moved :: That the papers which have been brought down respecting the claim of the province of Nova Scotia against the government of Canada be forthwith printed, and that for this purpose Rule 94 be suspended.
He said : I wish to draw the attention of the government to the fact that the evidence has not been brought down, and I would wish it to be laid on the Table of the House.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES (Hon. Sir Louis Davies).: Do you wish the evidence taken by the arbitrators brought down ?


John Graham Haggart: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
CLAIM OF MACKENZIE & MANN.
Mr. R. L. BORDEN (Halifax).: I call the attention of the government to the statement of the right lion, the Prime Minister, on the lltli of March, with reference to certain papers respecting the claim of Mackenzie & Mann. On that date, in answer to a question, the right hon. gentleman said : That a certain claim had been made, and was being considered by the government, and that the papers would shortly be communicated to the House. Inasmuch as some four weeks have since elapsed, and the papers have not been brought down, I take the liberty of bringing the matter to the attention of the right hon. gentleman.



INSPECTION OF FRUIT PACKAGES.

[Stage Direction]
The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE (Hon. Sydney Fisher) moved third reading of Bill (No. 32) to provide for the marking and inspection of packages containing fruit for sale. He said : When this Bill was discussed in the committee the other night, there was a considerable number of alterations made in various sections which will necessitate further alterations to make the Bill intelligent and complete. The proposed changes do not interfere with the principle of the Bill. The Bill as introduced was only intended to apply to apples and pears, but as it has been made to apply to all fruit, we shall have to substitute the word ' fruit ' for the words ' apples and pears,' in the sixth and seventh sections. In consequence of the introduction of clause 9, the words which deal with the size of the fruit are not required. In section 8, the word ' first ' should read ' finest.' In clause 9, line 20, the words ' The marks on such packages or' are not required. I withdraw my motion for third reading.
Motion for third reading withdrawn.
The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE moved :: That the order for third reading of Bill (No. 32) be discharged, and that' the Bill be referred back to Committee of the Whole.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House again went into committee on the Bill.
On section 6,
The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I move that the word 'fruit' be substituted for the words 'apples or pears,' and that all the words after ' package ' in the eighth line be struck out.


Mr. MONK.: Is this intended to apply to tomatoes ?	"


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I do not think tomatoes would come under the definition of fruit, but I would not like to give a legal opinion upon it.


Mr. HENDERSON.: Would you give us an agricultural opinion upon it ? I think Mr. HAGGART.
the hon. minister ought to be able to determine whether a tomato is a fruit or a vegetable.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I am not going to enter upon any such question.


Mr. SPROULE.: I think what the hon. gentleman should decide first is what he means by fruit, because there is no definition in the Bill.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I would move that section 7 be amended by the substitution of the word ' fruit ' for the words ' apples or pears ' in the second line, and by striking out all the words after the word ' packed ' in the seventh line.


Mr. TAYLOR.: Perhaps the minister will insert a clause defining what fruit is to mean, because the word covers a large field. He would not say to my hon. friend whether a tomato is fruit or a vegetable.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I confess that I have not undertaken to define the word ' fruit ' in this Bill. I think the practice in the market would pretty thoroughly define it. The differences between a tomato and say a currant and a gooseberry are a little indefinite, if you say that the one is a fruit and the other is not a fruit in a scientific sense, although I think there is no doubt that in the courts a gooseberry would be considered in the market acceptation of the term a fruit, while in most cases a tomato would be called a vegetable. I do not think there is any very clear line of demarcation between a fruit and a vegetable.


George Taylor: Where would my hon. friend place a cranberry ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I think the market definition of a cranberry would be that it is a fruit. To state arbitrarily that certain things are fruits and certain other things are not fruits would load down the Bill with complications ; and in making out such a list, something might be omitted which should not be omitted.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I think the minister's explanation is the strongest reason why there should be a defining clause. He suggests that it should be left to the courts to determine. It seems to me there is no necessity for that. Why not mention apples, pears, and certain other fruits in the Bill, and then anything outside of those would not be a fruit ?


Mr. HOLMES.: To avoid all trouble it seems to me that you should not attempt to define fruit at all. For instance, would you call a banana a fruit ? It seems to me that what is understood in the commercial world as fruit is sufficient. As a rule, tomatoes are not put up in packages, so that this Bill does not apply to them.


Mr. LANCASTER.: I submit that the easiest way out of the difficulty would be to enumerate what fruits you are legislating about. Then you do not have to say what things are fruits and what things are not.


Robert Laird Borden: At least the hon. Minister of Agriculture might let us know what fruits he has in mind to which this Bill shall apply. When he is making a change from apples and pears to fruit in general, he must have in his mind certain fruits to which the Bill is to apply ; and it would perhaps give us a better idea whether the amendments are proper ones to be made, if he would state what those fruits are.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I may say to my hon. friend that the amendment does not propose to change the Bill beyond what was accepted in the committee. The provisions relating to apples and pears were originally intended to apply only to the export trade ; but when it was decided that they should apply to internal trade as well as to the export trade, there was no reason why they should not apply to all fruits, as the other sections do. That is the reason why I was obliged to make this change in the wording of this particular section ; and it is only a change of the wording. I must say that I think it would be difficult to make out a list of fruits to which only this Bill should apply. It might be done ; but there would be great danger that some fruits which are sold in the ordinary market might be omitted through inadvertence. I do not think there is any doubt in any ease which might arise under the Bill, the courts would be able to decide whether a particular fruit came under this Act or not.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I do not think the reason the hon. minister gives us is a sufficient reason to justify us in not amending the Bill at this stage. Even if this defect in the Bill has only now been brought to our attention, it is none the less the part of wisdom to insert a provision to overcome that defect. The minister says that if we Inserted a schedule of the fruits to which this Bill should apply, it might be found afterwards that other fruits should have been included. If so, it is an easy matter afterwards to amend the Bill so as to include them. But I think it is the part of wisdom to insert some list, so that the people handling, packing or selling fruit will know to what the Bill does apply.


Robert Laird Borden: It seems to me that the amendment which the hon. minister proposes is a little more important than he seems to imagine. The Bill originally applied, of course, only to apples and pears. These sections which the hon. gentleman is proposing to amend he proposes to make applicable to every variety of fruit. Therefore, as affecting all varieties of fruit except
apples and pears this has all the effect and importance of a new Bill. It does not seem to me worth while, then, to speak of this as a mere verbal change, a change of no importance. I do not know what other fruits besides apples and pears are usually sold in closed packages in Canada. The hon. gentleman (Hon. Mr. Fisher), having experience in his department with regard to such matters, should be able to inform the House on that subject. I would much like if the hon. gentleman would do so before the discussion goes further. It seems to me we are entitled to have that information from the hon. minister.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I understand that the change in these words affects other classes of fruit, but the change made proposes simply to carry out what I understood to be the intention of the committee.


Robert Laird Borden: With respect to apples and pears ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: With respect to all fruit. I supposed that these amendments had been made in committee, and it was only when I saw the reprinted Bill and found that these amendments had not been introduced that I proposed this change. As I understood the sense of the committee when the Bill was under discussion before, it was fully understood and intended that these sections should apply to all fruits. That is why I said that this was only a verbal alteration, and not because I did not understand or appreciate that the amendment made a radical change in the application of these two sections. As to the kinds of fruit that are sold in closed packages, peaches are frequently so sold and sometimes also currants, gooseberries and raspberries. Grapes are sold in closed packages, though the wording of the Bill applies only to kegs, barrels, or boxes, and would not apply to baskets. That change was accepted in deference to the representations of the hon. member for South Wentworth (Mr. Smith). When I said that it would be a difficult matter to make a list of fruits packed in closed packages, it was because there may be fruits which to-day are not sold in closed packages but which to-morrow might be so sold, in which case the Bill would apply to them. The Bill applies to every kind of fruit sold in a package which is of such a character as to prevent the buyer seeing and judging of the quality of what he is getting. The object is to assure the buyer of really getting what the seller pretends to sell. That being the general character of the Bill, it seems to me that the question of the kind of fruit is only a detail. The Bill applies to all fruits which are sold in such a way that the package may help the palming off on the purchaser of fruit of a lower quality than that represented by the seller. Fruits that are sold in open packages for home consumption are

frequently packed in closed packages for export. For instance, grapes are sold In open baskets in the local market, but they are sometimes exported in kegs, packed In various kinds of packing, such as buckwheat hulls and other things that are tasteless. This Bill would apply to grapes so packed. These are the reasons why, at the moment it strikes me as being inexpedient to define too closely the exact kinds of fruit to which the Bill should apply.


George Taylor: I would like to ask the hon. minister how the Bill would apply to what we know in Ontario as the huckleberry, or the blueberry, as it is called in the lower provinces. We import this fruit largely from the lower provinces, and it comes packed in an enclosed package-a log hollowed out something like a sap trough and covered with a solid board. Those that come from the west are usually packed in pails. How would section 7 apply to the huckleberry if it were made to read

No person shall sell, or offer, expose or have in his possession for sale, any fruit packed in a olosed package, upon which package Is marked the grade ' No. 1 Canadian ' unless such fruit consists of specimens of one variety, sound, of fairly uniform size, and not less than SO per *cent free from scab, worm holes, bruises and other defects-
-and so on. When we get these berries from Nova Scotia, there is not twenty per cent of them but are bruised. Of course everybody will admit that the blueberry is a fruit, and it cannot be doubted that as we import them they are contained in a closed package. How will this Bill affect the trade in this fruit ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: If the mark indicated in the section is put upon the package, it will come under the operation of the section. If not, it will not come under the operation of the law. The seller is able to sell the fruit without putting on the packages the mark ' No. 1 Canadian? and without that it would not come under the section.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: All this seems to make it more evident that it is important to define the kind of fruit aimed at by this section 7. Does the hon. minister pretend that those who gather blueberries, say, in the Saguenay district of the province of Quebec, are to be brought under the operation of this section ? How can they avoid violating the law


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: By not putting the mark upon them.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: But they are obliged to put a mark on them. Under section 4, every person who packs fruit in a closed package for sale must mark the package

-(a) with the initials of the Christian names, and the full surname and address of the packer (b) with the name of the variety or varieties ; and
(c) with a designation of the grade of the fruit.
And how about the other wild berries picked in Quebec and sent to Montreal in closed packages ? How about the wild grapes that are sent to Montreal in barrels or closed packages in the autumn in very large quantities and are used in the city for different purposes ? How about the fruit known as mCire, or catlierinette ? Is my hon. friend going to apply section 7 to them ? It would be a frightful hardship on those who gather these wild fruits.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: If a mark is put upon a closed package, indicating that it contains a certain quality of fruit, it ought to contain that quality of fruit. Of course, if one is attempting to sell in closed packages fruit which is not up to the quality represented on the packages, he would be guilty of an infraction of the law. And that is the intention.


Mr. CLANCY.: Would the hon. minister explain the difference between ' grade ' and ' quality.' If they do not mean the same thing, they mean substantially the same, or they are so intimately connected that It would be difficult to distinguish between them.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I do not think there is any distinction.


James Clancy: Then my hon. friend (Mr. Monk) is right in saying that with this change all fruit in closed packages must be marked with the designation of the quality and so on.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Yes.


James Clancy: Then there would be no escape such as the hon. minister has pointed out.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: But the object of the Bill is to prevent persons putting upon closed packages marks indicating that the fruit is of first quality when, as a matter of fact, it is not of first quality. If it is not the intention that the Bill should carry out that idea, these sections are not right.


James Clancy: Section 8 brings these two together, because it says :
No person shall sell, or offer, expose or have in his possession for sale any fruit packed in closed package, upon which package is marked any designation which represents such fruit as of first, best or extra good quality, unless such fruit consist of well-grown specimens of one variety, sound, of nearly uniform size, of good colour for the variety, of normal shape, and not less than 90 per cent free from scab, worm holes, bruises and other defects, and properly packed.
That leaves no possible escape. If there is anything that designates the quality of the fruit, and if the fruit is in an inclosed package, it comes within the operation of the law.


Mr. FISHER.: 


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: That is the intention of the Act.


James Clancy: It seems to me it may be a very serious matter.


Robert Laird Borden: As to the operation of the Act, it is very desirable that some such Act should be passed. My hon. friend must not think that we are opposed to the principle of the Act, because we are not; but it is necessary for us to see how it will work out. Take the case which was suggested a moment ago by my hon. friend from Leeds (Mr. Taylor), the bringing of blueberries from the maritime provinces to Ontario in closed packages. They might be in such a condition when they started upon their journey as to justify the application of grade No. 1, or A No. 1 ; and yet when they arrived at their destination they might be bruised, as he mentions. The result of that would seem to be that you would have to open every package and turn out a -sample of the fruit before you can sell it, otherwise the vendor would subject himself to a penalty under the interpretation of this Act which the hon. gentleman insisted on the other day. Now that does seem to be a result we would hardly like to bring about, and I would like to have the hon. gentleman's views with regard to it.


James Clancy: Before the minister makes his explanation, I would like to ask if all the fruit within the meaning of that section is supposed to be absolutely free from every possible defect ? If so, it is a very harsh Bill. The hon. gentleman will see that the Bill originally intended to indicate the defects that particularly belong to apples and pears, namely, scab, worm holes and bruises. But there are other defects. I would like to ask the minister if it is the intention that every class of fruit under section 6 must have 90 per cent absolutely free from every defect ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: The intention of the section as now amended would be that any fruit marked A No. 1 Canadian should be like that.


James Clancy: Does the hon. gentleman intend that all fruit marked A No. 1 Canadian shall stand first, and the fruit coming under section 8 shall stand second, and the fruit coming under No. 1 Canadian in section 7, stand third ? Because that would be the effect of the Bill by reason of 90 per cent being required under section 6 and under section 8, while only 80 per cent is required under section 7.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: No, No. 8 is a different section altogether from sections 6 and 7. No. 8 is practically the same as No. 6 except that it does not give an absolute grade of a certain character, or brand of a certain character ; but it does not define the brand ; whereas No. 8 does give a definite brand of A No. 1 Canadian. But there is no comparison, or gradation, or inferiority of the fruit as sold under the definition in section 8, from that under section 6. I may say in reply to the hon. leader of the opposition, that section 6 as applied to a fruit like blueberries, or as applied to certain other small fruits, does not seem to be very clear. I think the description of the defects in them would hardly apply to such small fruit. It seems to me if it is only applied to apples and pears, a number of other fruits which would come legitimately under this section would escape and the section would not apply to them. But section 8 is really the section that would cover most cases. Sections 0 and 7 are those under which only certain specified grades are employed, and anybody selling such fruits as blueberries and other small fruits would not use these particular definitions of A No. 1 Canadian, or No. 1 Canadian, and consequently sections 6 and 7 would not apply to them ; while section 8 would apply to them if sold under any qualification, that is to say, if they put any brand upon them which indicated superior excellence. If they did not put a brand on them which indicated superior excellence, then section 9 would apply to them, and it requires that when the fruit is examined, the portion examined shall be a fair representative of the contents of the whole package.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I think section 7 will give rise in the province of Quebec to a great deal of useless litigation, because the definition therein is not correct at all as applied to fruit in general. The minister may say that when it is a question of small fruit, you won't turn to sections 6 or 7, but you must. There was a prohibition in section 7 which was limited to apples and pears, and it is now desired to apply it to all fruits, that is a prohibition to sell.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: No, there is only a prohibition to sell with a certain mark upon them.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: But does the minister suppose that parties who send blueberries and wild grapes fresh to Montreal will neglect to mark them as No. 1, because they must mark them.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Unless they mark them No. 1 Canadian this section would not apply.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: In the first place, you say that all fruit must be marked with the designation or grade, it does not matter whether it is first, second, or extra quality or any quality. That, I take it, applies to all the fruit that is included in this Bill. Therefore you cannot exempt any kind of fruit from sections 6, or 7, or 8. I understood the minister to say that unless it is marked best, or extra good quality, it would not come under section 8 ; but they have got to mark the quality.


The MINISTER OP AGRICULTURE.: But they need not mark it extra good.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: But there is either, first, best, or extra quality, these are the three qualities. But section 4 says you must mark the package with the grade of the fruit.


The MINISTER OP AGRICULTURE.: Yes, but if your fruit is not of extra good quality you can mark it medium, or mark it second, or whatever you like. You must mark the grade, but you may mark it second grade.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: But suppose you do not mark them at all ?


The MINISTER OP AGRICULTURE.: But you must.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Then you are amenable to the law and liable to a fine if you do not mark them ?


The MINISTER OP AGRICULTURE.: No doubt.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Then if you mark it something, it must be first quality or some other quality, and unless it comes up to the standard that is set for first quality, then I think you are liable to a fine.


The MINISTER OP AGRICULTURE.: If you mark it second quality and it comes up to second quality, you would not be liable to a penalty. If you mark it first quality and it is found to be only second quality, then you are liable to a penalty. If you mark it XXX and it is found to be of a quality indicated by X or XX, then you would be liable to a penalty.


James Clancy: Section 4 provides that all fruit must be designated of some quality. Now, suppose a man marks his apples XX ; according * to this Bill it absolutely does not determine anything, because it might be precisely the same quality that is marked X by his neighbour, and the one not knowing at all how the other marked his apples. I would like to ask the hon. gentleman how it is possible to carry out the provisions of the Bill under such circumstances unless it is declared that there must be some mark specially indicating the quality. If that be the case then it is quite clear that punishments will be visited upon those who offend against the law. If you must have some mark and that mark means anything in most cases I do not see how it is possible to work that out.


The MINISTER OP AGRICULTURE.: That is just the object covered by section 8, and it is thought to be pretty completely covered by it as far as any definition of what we do not know can possibly do it. We do not know what marks different traders may put upon their fruit, but if any one puts a mark upon his fruit which appears to indicate that it is specially good and it is not so, section 8 would cover that :


Thomas Simpson Sproule: whereas if we define only certain things as marks that were going to be covered by this Bill, then, anybody who did not put these marks upon his fruit, but who put other marks upon it intended to deceive, would not be liable to the penalties of the Bill. We think that section 8 covers that point.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I would suggest to the hon. minister to exempt from the operation of this law wild fruits, such as we have in the province of Quebec. There is no doubt that it is intended to apply particularly to garden-grown fruit.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Yes.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: The possibility of applying the Bill to fruit grown in the fields or in the woods would be very great, and I would suggest to the hon. minister to exempt wild fruit entirely from the operation of the law.


The MINISTER OP AGRICULTURE.: What words would the hon. gentleman (Mr. Monk) suggest to cover that ?


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I think the words * wild fruit ' in general would cover it.


The MINISTER OP AGRICULTURE.: Would the hon. gentleman's idea be covered by these words : ' Fruit not wild fruit ' in sections 6 and 7 ?


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I think it, perhaps, may be made the subject of a special section, providing that fruit meant to be covered by this Act would not be meant to include wild fruit.


The MINISTER OP AGRICULTURE.: That is a new idea, but it is one, I think, well worthy of consideration. I think it would be a fair interpretation of the Bill, as my hon. friend has said. The full intention of the Bill was to deal with cultivated fruit. We can quite understand that wild fruit is much more difficult to grade than is cultivated fruit. I think, perhaps, that would completely cover the difficulty that has been raised this afternoon in regard to the change in these sections. If that is the feeling of the committee, I would be disposed to insert a clause saying that in this Bill the word ' fruit ' would not include wild fruit.


George Taylor: I think the hon. minister should confine the Bill to apples and pears, as was originally intended. I do not see the object he has in introducing now the word ' fruits ' to take the place of ' apples and pears.' We do not know what trouble it will lead to. It has been suggested that it might apply to blueberries and cranberries, and he intends to except these, but the same objection will apply, perhaps, to some of the cultivated fruits that we purchase in closed packages. The whole discussion of the Bill was conducted the other

day upon the idea that it would apply to apples and pears. The hon. member tor South Wentworth (Mr. Smith), who takes a deep interest in the Bill, is not present today, and I would suggest, that, if the hon. minister is going on with the Bill, he should ask the committee to rise and report progress, and in the meantime that he should come to a conclusion as to what fruit the Bill should affect.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: My hon. friend (Mr. Taylor) is entirely wrong in saying that the original intention of the Bill was that it should apply only to apples and pears. Sections 8 and 9, which are now in this reprinted Bill, and which were section 8 of the original Bill, as introduced in the committee the other day, distinctly applied to all kinds of fruit. My hon. friend has quoted the hon. member for Wentworth (Mr. Smith). The hon. member for Wentworth was a member of the committee of the Fruit Growers' Association which specially asked that this Bill should apply to other fruit than apples and pears, and that it should apply to the internal trade of the country instead of only to the export trade. The hon. member for South Leeds (Mr. Taylor), in saying that the original idea was that the Bill should apply only to apples and pears, is entirely wrong, and the quotation he has made is a misplaced one, inasmuch as he has not understood the views or wishes of the hon. member for Wentworth. The Bill certainly is desired and called for by the consuming public of the country to apply to other fruits besides apples and pears, and I think the advantages of the Bill would be extremely limited and largely minimized were it not to apply to all kinds of fruit. But, I must point out to the hon. gentleman that it is only when these other fruits are sold in closed packages that the Bill does apply to them. If they are sold in open packages, as' most of our small fruits are in this country, the Bill does not apply to them at all, and it does not create the difficulties which the hon. gentleman has mentioned. Is the hon. member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) writing a clause to cover the point which he mentioned ?


Frederick Debartzch Monk: No, I am not ; but I will do so if the hon. gentleman wishes it.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I am quite willing to do it; I thought the hon. gentleman was doing it.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The more discussion that takes place the plainer is the need shown that we should define what is fruit. If you say ' wild fruit,' you may refer to an article that would be regarded as tame fruit in some cases. Take cranberries, for instance ; they are being planted in marshes and cultivated. They are wild fruit in one sense and tame fruit in another sense. They are largely gathered in the Georgian Bay district by the Indians. They are usually put up in barrels, and they would undoubtedly come under this Bill, unless you define what is meant by the word ' fruit.' Blueberries are treated in very much the same way. Sometimes they are put up in pails and sometimes in kegs. Apricots; and plums are also put up in barrels and kegs, so that all this fruit would come under this Bill. There is no doubt about that, and I think it would be much more workable and much more easily understood if you would insert a clause defining what is the meaning of the word ' fruit ' in this Bill, and stating to what fruit the Bill shall apply.


Robert Holmes: I think, as I expressed myself before, that if you begin to define the various kinds of cultivated or wild fruits you are going to get into no end of trouble. I do not think that anybody looks upon cranberries as cultivated fruit. They are looked upon simply as wild fruit, and they are so classed commercially. Take blueberries ; they are looked upon as wild fruit also, so that if you begin to enumerate what are wild fruits and what are cultivated fruits, you will get into no end of difliculty. If you accept the common-sense commercial term as to what are wild and what are tame fruits, you will be safe. You cannot begin to define what may be wild or what may be tame or cultivated fruits, and if you take the ordinary commercial acceptation of the term, there will be no difficulty.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: If the hon. gentleman (Mr. Holmes) had been at the Agricultural Committee a few years ago, he would have heard one of the members of the staff giving information as to how they plant and cultivate cranberries in the maritime provinces. People there grow as many as fifty acres in a season, and they make a regular practice of raising them for sale. Would that not be regarded as tame fruit ? They are cultivated the same as tame fruit. If we specify the varieties of fruit that the Bill should apply to, then all others are outside of the operation of the Bill. The hon. gentleman speaks of the ordinary commercial term ' fruit,' but we do not know what it is. There may be the ordinary commercial term for cranberries, but who is to say whether it is tame fruit or wild fruit ? He may say it is wild fruit, and I may say it is tame fruit. Therefore, there is the difficulty to commence with. We can avoid that by specifying what is to be included urfder the operation of the Bill.


Robert Holmes: I understand the hon. member for East Grey (Mr. Sproule) to say that in his section plums are shipped in barrels ?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Sometimes they are packed in barrels.


Robert Holmes: I represent a section of Ontario which produces a large quantity

of plums, and I never knew a barrel of plums to be skipped.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: There is a great deal going on in the world that the hon. gentleman (Mr. Holmes) never knew of. I make the statement which I know to be a fact. It does not necessarily follow that because the hon. gentleman does not know it. nothing of the kind could occur.


Mr. COCHRANE.: I cannot see any great difficulty in designating the fruits that this Bill will cover. I cannot see how it is going to lead to such a lot of trouble as the hon. member for West Huron (Mr. Holmes) anticipates in his imagination. In my mind it would be a very simple thing to designate the fruit intended to be covered by this Bill. It need not take a very long clause to designate what you intend to cover by this Bill, and then all that is not named in this Bill would be outside of it and the Bill would not apply to it. That would be the simplest way out of it. If you name the fruits it will make your Bill workable and there will be no ' if ' about it.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I cannot see the object of giving a list of the fruits when it is fully intended that all fruit which is packed in closed packages shall be included.


Matthew Henry Cochrane: You do not include wild fruits.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: With the exception of wild fruits. When cranberries are packed in barrels I do not see why they should not be subject to the provisions of this Bill. It is true there are wild cranberries and cultivated cranberries, just as there are wild strawberries and cultivated strawberries, and in Nova Scotia, for instance, there are more cultivated than wild cranberries put upon the market. The words ' wild fruit ' would not cover cultivated cranberries. I think if we make the exception for wild fruit, that is all that will be necessary. I consider that the insertion of a list of fruits in the Bill would lead to difficulty.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: How could the minister tell whether cranberries are wild or cultivated, and that must be determined before this Bill is workable. Sometimes cranberries are frozen for transport, and at other times they are packed in during the warm season. There are high bush and low bush cranberries, both of which are packed in barrels, and sometimes when you open the package they are bruised. When they are bruised they would not come under the definition of a high quality of fruit as provided in this Bill.


Mr. WRIGHT.: It seem to me that if you stencil on the package the words * wild fruit ' you would have no trouble in getting over the difficulty, and I' be-Mr. HOLMES.
lieve it to be a wise distinction to .make. Every dealer in cranberries knows that when he gets cranberries from Cape Cod he gets cultivated cranberries, because the name of the grower is placed on the package. If you get cultivated cranberries from Nova Scotia the name of the grower is on the package also, and you know that they are cultivated, whereas if they are gathered in the marshes the name is not put on the packages, and you know they are wild. The words ' wild fruit ' stencilled on. the package would cover the whole ground.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I shall move an amendment to clause 3 in accordance with the view of the hon. gentleman from Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk), but in the meantime we had better proceed with the other clauses of the Bill.
On section 8,


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: The word * first ' is a misprint here, and I move to substitute for it the word ' finest.'


James Clancy: I would like the minister to tell us if he can, what is the substantial difference between clause G and clause 8. In one clause you put the words ' A No. 1, Canadian,' which I take it includes finest, best or extra good quality, specified in the other clause.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Yes.


James Clancy: Then why repeat the same thing in section 8 ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Section 8 applies to other brands of a similar character which are not included in ' A No. 1, Canadian.' Section 8 would apply to superior or super-excellent or XXX, which a dealer might put upon his packages but not ' A No. 1, Canadian.'


James Clancy: The minister is quite mistaken. The sections are precisely the same except in one case you put ' A No. 1, Canadian,' which means finest, best or extra good quality, as the hon. gentleman admits. As a layman, I am perfectly amazed at the suggestion of the minister that there is any difference between the two. You simply say the same thing in different words. ,


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Section 6 only applies to ' A No. 1, Canadian,' whereas section 8 applies to any brand which implies super-excellence, and is therefore wider in its scope.


James Clancy: There is no difference in the clauses except in certain words.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Yes, but these certain words make all the difference in the world.


James Clancy: The minister has evidently not studied the section. The words in both sections are precisely the same except that in

one you say ' A No. 1, Canadian,' -which includes the finest and best; and in the other you say ' finest, best or extra good quality.' You can read ' A No. 1, Canadian ' into either of the sections and they are precisely the same. I would like any gentleman who is a lawyer in this House to say what is the difference between the two sections.


The MINISTER OP AGRICULTURE.: The leader of the opposition is a lawyer, and I would ask him what the difference is ?


Robert Laird Borden: The other day 1 pointed out to the Minister of Agriculture precisely the objection raised by the hon. member for Bothwell (Mr. Clancy). If you can convict any person under clause No. G, you can also convict him of an offence against clause No. 8.


The MINISTER OP AGRICULTURE.: Certainly.


Robert Laird Borden: Therefore section G has no office which is not fulfilled by section 8; and that is the point my hon. friend made. The hon. gentleman did not make the same reply to me, that he did to my hon. friend. What he said was that he desired to retain section 6 for the purpose of educating the public to use the word 'Canadian'; and I thought it was a remarkable thing to introduce a section into legislation to bring that about, a course which had never been pursued before ; for every other office of section 6 seemed to be fulfilled by section 8, which was exactly the point my hon. friend from Bothwell made to-day.


The MINISTER OP AGRICULTURE.: I think my hon. friend is mistaken. The point he made the other day was just the reverse of that which the hon. member for Bothwell is making. The point he made was that section 6 was unnecessary, whereas the point the hon. member for Bothwell is making is that section 8 is unnecessary; and as a matter of fact, the reply which I made to the leader of the opposition the other day was not the same as that which I made to the hon. member for Bothwell. The hon. gentleman is quite right in saying that I wish to retain section 6 as an encouragement or education to the trade to use a Canadian national brand; but if section 6 stood alone, and anybody chose to use another brand which indicated superexcellence or high quality, he would not be subject to the penalties under this Bill; but section 8 brings him under those penalties, and that is its object.


James Clancy: Surely the hon. gentleman will not recede from the position he took, namely, that ' A No. 1 Canadian ' means what is described in section 8.
other things are brought within the operation of the Act.


James Clancy: This is what the hon. leader of the opposition said the other day :
If the hon. Minister of Agriculture does not make the use of the word ' Canadian ' compulsory, what office does section 6 fill which is not filled by the section which he proposes to add? It fills no office at all. If you add that section, but do not make the use of the word ' Canadian ' compulsory, section 6 fills no office which would not be filled by the section which the hon. gentleman proposes to add, namely, section 8.
The hon. gentleman pointed out that if you adopted the new section 8, you could then well afford to abandon section 6. It is not worth while contending whether section G or section 8 should be retained, because the one or the other might be abandoned, and the Bill have precisely the same effect. I think I catch the hon. gentleman's idea with regard to section 8, but I fail to see that it accomplishes his object, namely, to include punishments for packing all classes of fruit other than those designated in the two sections, because a man may mark his fruit what he' pleasos without coming within the meaning of the Act.
Section as amended agreed to.
On section 9,


The MINISTER OE AGRICULTURE.: I would move that in section 9 the words * the marks on such package or ' in the seventh line be struck out. This clause deals entirely with the faced or shown part of the fruit being a fair representation of the fruit contained in the interior of the package; therefore the marks on the package are not necessary.
Section as amended agreed to.
On section 3,


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I would like to go back to section 3, and propose as subsection ' a ' the following :
The word ' fruit,' wherever employed in this Act, shall not be held to include wild fruit.
Section as amended agreed to.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I would like to again press upon the hon. minister the advisability of reconsidering the proposition to define what fruits are included in the operation of this Bill, because I regard that as very important. Providing simply that wild fruit is not included does not make the Bill as workable as it would be by defining what fruits come under it. Then there would be no mistake.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I hope my hon. friend will let the Bill pass as it is, and if in its operation we find it necessary to define the fruit, we can do so.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Lock the stable after the horse is stolen.
Bill reported, and amendments read the first time.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Certainly it does, but by section 8 these 83

[DOT]2627

The MINISTER OP AGRICULTURE moved that the amendments he now read the second time and agreed to.


James Clancy: I had hoped that the hon. minister would have considered the propriety of striking out that part of section 17 which gives a chance to informers to receive a portion of the tine. I am unable to think that any elause of that kind, which may be found in some Acts and under other conditions, because sanctioned by long usage, has ever gained respectability. My own idea is that there is nothing more dangerous, nothing more futile, nothing more disturbing or more dishonourable, than for men to live and profit as informers. This Bill affects a very large class of the people in this country, namely, the farmers, and under the widened sections of the Bill, since it applies to all classes of fruit sold either for domestic purposes or for export, a man could claim a portion of the money imposed as a flue for the most trifling infraction of the law. I hope the hon. gentleman will consent, without my making a motion, to strike out that portion of the clause. I move that all the words in section 17 from * payable ' to ' His Majesty ' be struck out.


Mr. SPEAKER.: It is not possible to put the hon. member's motion now, because the question is on the second reading of the amendments which have been adopted in committee.


James Clancy: I will move it at a later stage.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and amendments read the second time and agreed to.
The MINISTER OP AGRICULTURE moved the third reading of the Bill.
Mr. CLANCY moved that section 17 be amended by striking out all the words from ' payable ' to ' His Majesty.'
The MINISTER OP AGRICULTURE.: I do not think it would be advisable to accept this amendment. The clause here introduced is part of our general inspection Act and is incorporated also in a large number of other laws, giving the informant a share of the penalty. 1 shall not enter into a discussion of the advisability of this general provision, but shall simply point out that it is a general provision in our legislation, one that has had the sanction of many years, I was almost tempted to say centuries of legislation. I do not consider this a blot upon the Bill. On the whole, the provision has worked satisfactorily in our jurisprudence. It is true that some times people of mean disposition may take advantage of such provision and may thus do themselves as well as their neighbours injustice and harm. But the number of cases in which individuals make their living by informing for the purpose of sharing these fines, is so small that I do not think that we need to allow it to influence us in the Mr. SPROULE.
passage of such legislation. I must ask the House to reject the amendment.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I do not rise to discuss the wisdom or otherwise of sending the Bill back to committee to amend this clause, but I rise to object to the third reading at this sitting. The rule we usually follow is that when a Bill passes in committee without amendment, it is read the third time forthwith


The MINISTER OP AGRICULTURE.: If the hon. gentleman (Mr. Sproule) will permit me to interrupt him-it is only by unanimous consent that we can take the third reading now, and I do not wish to press it if he objects. I understood that no objection was taken, or 1 would not have asked that the Bill be read the third time now.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: My reason for objecting is that important amendments have been made in this Bill, and some of our best fruit men are absent to-day-members who, I am sure, would like to consider the amendment before the Bill is read the third time.
The PRIME MINISTER moved the adjournment of the debate.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and debate adjourned.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 93) respecting inquiries and investigations into shipping casualties.-Sir Louis Davies.

[Stage Direction]
The MINISTER OF FINANCE (Hon. W. S. Fielding) presented a Message from His Excellency the Governor General.
Mr. SPEAKER read the Message, as follows :-
Minto.
The Governor General transmits to the House of Commons further supplementary estimates of sums required for the services of the Dominion for the year ending June 30, 1901, and in accordance with the provisions of the British North America Act, 1867, the Governor General recommends these estimates to the House of Commons.
Government House,
Ottawa, April 9, 1901.
The MINISTER OF FINANCE moved :: That the Message of His Excellency and the estimates be referred to the Committee of Supply-


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
House again in Committee of Supply.
Railways and Canals-Chargeable to Capital-* Railways-Intercolonial Railway-Steel rails and fastenings, $500,000.
['If not, we will take up some of the Interior estimates.']
John Graham Haggart: Will the hon. minister give us a- full account of the requirements under this head, also the amount expended last year and the policy pursued. Will he please state whether these rails were bought by tender, and what the price was.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS (Hon. A. G. Blair).: I may say that the amount here asked for is not likely to be all that we shall ask for this session, so the hon. gentleman must keep that fact in view. The hon. gentleman's (Mr. Hag-gart's) request is a very reasonable one, and I shall endeavour to give the information. Last year the rails were purchased by tender. They were furnished by two firms, a part by each-the Illinois Company and the Cambria Company. We had offers from these companies lower than those of others, including English manufacturers. The rails procured last year were to re-rail, as far as they would go, the Cape Breton line. We had some difficulty owing to the scarcity of labour last year and did not succeed in getting the whole ninety-four or ninety-five miles from Point Tupper to Sydney laid. I think we laid some seventy odd miles. The balance of the work we expect to complete as soon as the season will permit. The price we paid last year was $32.60 a ton. The arrangement made this year for the rails we propose to lay down during the next year, that is after 1st July, we pay for at the same price, $32.60. These rails we get in accordance with an arrangement entered into by the government, after consideration of the whole question, with the Sault Ste. Marie Power Company. We had a proposition from them to put in a steel rail plant to manufacture these rails in Canada. They satisfied us of their ability to do this work, and that they would be capable of establishing a very efficient plant, using ores of a superior quality. They said the steel which would be made from it would contain a percentage of nickel, which would be found in the rails they would make for us. Although this formed no element in the price, it would add materially to the durability and value of the rails, and we felt that that was an additional inducement for us to make the arrangement with them. The establishment of this industry was contingent upon their securing from the government a fair order, one sufficiently large to guarantee them employment for their factory-a basis, as it were, upon which to invite and encourage the introduction of capital for that purpose. As the government viewed the matter, it was one which we felt would appeal very strongly to the sympathetic consideration of the Canadian people. It would result in the establishment of a permanent industry and would secure to railway companies and others who might require rails, a supply obtainable in this 835
country, while giving employment directly and indirectly to a large number of people. While conferring an enormous benefit upon a very great public work, we would be at the same time conferring additional and important advantages on the country in an industrial sense. We made such an arrangement with them. In the first place the question came up in the form of a proposal. The company offered to undertake the manufacture and delivery of these rails lat such a price as similar rails of equal standard could be obtained in the open market. At the time we made these arrangements we instituted inquiries as to the current price of rails, and we found it would be impossible for us to place orders at that time for a delivery earlier than the fall of the present year, and that the prices obtainable would be at all events equal to the prices that we were paying last year, and which we had contracted for the year before. When we had assured ourselves with reference to what would be a reasonable price to pay, we made a contract with this company to deliver 25,000 tons of the quality and standard which we have been placing upon the road, a rail eighty pounds in weight, and we were to pay them $32.50 per ton, the delivery to commence in the first week in August, and to continue at such a rate that we would be able to lay the rails before the snow fell.


John Graham Haggart: Where were they to be delivered ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: They were to be delivered to us in Montreal-that is in the present year. We have no permanent and explicit contract with them for the future, although in their proposal they asked us to give them a contract for a term of five years, and to give them an order for 50,000 tons with which to commence their industry. We finally concluded to give them an order for 25,000 tons, and while we have no explicit contract with them for any term beyond the year in which we are now entering, we have an understanding with them under which, if they furnish us, as they engage to do, with rails of the quality and standard we require, and at the current price in the English market, we are prepared to continue to take our rails from them.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Do I understand the minister that these rails are to be manufactured at the Soo ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Yes. The plant is now under way. The machinery, Mr. Clergue tells me, is all constructed, they are putting up their buildings rapidly, and I have heard very lately from them to the effect that we will receive, beginning the first week in August, a delivery of 500 tons a day. As to the amount, we have inserted in this estimate the sum of $500,000. After making deduc-

tions for the value of the old rails which we are taking up, we will have to ask parliament in a supplementary estimate for a sum beyond this amount. The exact sum will appear when the estimates are brought down ; but this is only a partial appropriation covering the cost of the 25,000| tons.


John Graham Haggart: Are the proceeds of the old rails you are to sell applied to the purchase of these new rails.


The MINISTER OP RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Yes, they go in reduction of the cost of these rails. It may be that none of them will be sold in time to help pay for these new rails, but when sold, they will go to the credit of capital outlay. That has been the course adopted in times past.


John Graham Haggart: When they go into store account, of course it is to the credit of the Intercolonial Railway ? These all go into store account ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Yes, if they are used there, they are charged to working expenses.


John Graham Haggart: I did not understand how many rails were bought from the Illinois company and the Cambria company.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Five thousand tons from each.


Mr. KAULBACH.: How are the old rails disposed of ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: The old rails, when taken up, are placed in storage account. When they are disposed of, it is in one of two ways. A portion of them may be used for our sidings, where we are extending our sidings. When these sidings are put in as renewals, the rails are charged against operating expenses ; when they are put in as new work, new sidings entirely, they are charged as against capital expenditure at the value at ,which they have been placed in store account.


John Graham Haggart: How do you determine their value when going into store account ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: The value usually placed on them is the value of the old rails as nearly as we can ascertain. For instance, these old rails that we have taken up now are placed in store account at $15 per ton. Another way of disposing of old rails, if we have no use for them ourselves, as we have no use for a large proportion of them, is to sell them at public competition, where they are bought either as scrap or for use on other railways.


John Graham Haggart: What do thev bring ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: During the last year they have


Mr. BLAIR.: not brought less than $21 to $22.50, delivered.	[DOT]


John Graham Haggart: I want to know on what principle rails are renewed on the Intercolonial Railway, how much does the hon. gentleman renew each year, and how much is required for the purpose. I would also like the hon. gentleman to tell me about this contract that he has made with Mr. Clergue, if it is in writing, and if he will be kind enough to bring it down to the House. Another question : Does the contract provide that these rails should be made out of iron ore smelted upon the premises and rolled, or is it merely a rolling mill, and does the contract provide that a certain percentage of nickel should be used in the manufacture of these rails ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: The agreement is in writing, and it will be brought down at once. I may add that it does not contain any provision as to the quantity of nickel the rails should contain ; but all the ore which is taken out by that company from its iron mines does contain nickel varying in proportion from 2 to 4 per cent. We are positively assured by Mr. Clergue upon that point. We hope to be able to relay the road at the rate of 25,000 tons a year. The hon. gentleman can figure it up for himself-it will take six or seven years to complete all our mileage. With an eighty-pound rail, we should require about 118 tons to the mile. We should have between 1,100 and 1,200 miles to relay, beyond what new rails have now been laid down. I am not going to commit myself to the exact number of miles, but it would be in that locality. We hope to do it as rapidly as possible. It is very important that it should be done in view of the increased weight of our locomotives and cars, and we think it would be advantageous to have it done as quickly as possible.


John Graham Haggart: What portion of these renewals is charged to ordinary expenditure and what portion to capital account ? Is any part charged to the ordinary expenditure of the	road	?The	MINISTER	OF	RAILWAYS	AND
CANALS. Undoubtedly.


John Graham Haggart: What part of it ?
The	MINISTER	OF	RAILWAYS	AND
CANALS. We anticipate charging the cost of laying down the new rails.


John Graham Haggart: I mean of the rail itself.
The	MINISTER	OF	RAILWAYS	ANR
CANALS. As I told the hon. gentleman, we estimated upon a value of $15 per ton for the old rail. That is the value at which we put these rails into store, so that all you would have to do would be to deduct that sum from the cost in order to ascertain

how much is being charged for the new rail.


John Graham Haggart: We know the charge for the new rail. The hon, minister does not understand the drift of my question. I want to know if any portion of the cost is charged to the ordinary account of the railway. What part is charged to consolidated fund account and what part to capital account ? I understand the difference between the $15, being the valuation at which the old rails go into storage and the price of the new rails being $32, making a difference of $17, which is charged some way or other against the Intercolonial Railway. I want to know whether that is charged to capital account or to the ordinary expenses of the road ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: 1 do not know that I misunderstood the hon. gentleman. I would understand his present statement just as I understood his previous one. I understood the hon. gentleman to ask me how much was charged to capital ?


John Graham Haggart: Yes.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: We certainly would not be charging the whole of it to capital account when we were putting into store account the difference between the whole amount and the value of the old rails. That is not charged to capital account. The hon. gentleman has a recollection of the way in which the rail matter was managed during his tenure of office, and it is now done precisely in the same way.


John Graham Haggart: The hon. minister does not understand me yet. Is the difference between the amount of the old rails to go into store account and the cost of the new rails-one is $15 and the other is $32, which would make $17-charged against the capital account of the Intercolonial Railway ?
The	MINISTER	OF	RAILWAYS	AND
CANALS. Yes, certainly it is.


John Graham Haggart: It is charged?
The	MINISTER	OF	RAILWAYS	AND
CANALS. Yes.


John Graham Haggart: Do I understand the hon. minister to say that renewals of that kind, before his time, were charged in a similar manner, to capital account ?
The	MINISTER	OF	RAILWAYS	AND
CANALS. No, I am not going to say that. In times past, from time to time, when a large quantity of rails was purchased by the government, the rails were paid for and charged to capital account. They went into store, and when they were taken out of store, they were, as a rule, during the hon. gentleman's	administration, charged
as a whole against operating.


John Graham Haggart: Yes.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: But. that was not the invariable rule, nor was it the rule when there would be a very large amount of relaying new rails. It is only the case when the quantity of rails laid was over a very limited number of miles. Under existing circum-staiices it would be altogether impossible to rerail the Intercolonial Railway in five or six years, and do it out of earnings. No matter what reasonable amount of a surplus you might have, you could not hope to do it in that way. It is according to railway law and usage that it should be done exactly as we are doing it.


Charles Edwin Kaulbach: I do not understand the point as to the sale of rails and delivery of the same. What is the exact interpretation in respect to delivery ? Does the hon. minister mean that if he sells me rails in Montreal he will deliver them at Halifax, or at any point on the Intercolonial Railway, or am I to take them from the point where they are found at the time ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Does the hon. gentleman refer now to the case of old rails which are being disposed of ?


Charles Edwin Kaulbach: Yes.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Our arrangement in reference to that, and I think it uniformly happens, although there may be some exception-I do not recall any-has been to charge a price for delivery at the point on the Intercolonial Railway nearest to where they are required. Our charge has been $22.50 for delivery at Montreal when the rails have been required west of Montreal, and we have made a calculation as to what would be a fair proportion less than that for hauling whenever delivery has been asked for at auy lesser distance from where they happened to be at the time. These matters are taken into consideration by the officers of the department and they control it, or rather their judgment would prevail, and any arrangement which they would recommend would be carried out, because I take it they would be best qualified to judge as to what would be a reasonaule proportion to divide as between a longer or a shorter distance. If the hon. gentleman refers to the delivery of rails which we are purchasing, I may say that our arrangement with Mr. Clergue, of the Lake Superior Power Company, or the Sault Ste. Marie Company, whichever is the proper name, is to make delivery of this present year's purchase at Montreal, which is the most convenient point for us to receive them. We have a further understanding, that if we take them they are to be delivered at such other points as we may deem convenient.


Charles Edwin Kaulbach: The information I desired was simply in regard to the sale of old rails. In case I desired to purchase in Nova Scotia, and the rails were in Montreal, would the hon. minister deliver these rails at Halifax, or any other point on the Intercolonial Railway, no matter where they were, at the same figure without the cost of transport ?	.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: No. The price we get is governed by the condition of the market. We get the best*price we can. We found that during the last year rails were in good demand, that the price was quite high, and that we could command $22 or $22.50-1 am not just certain which-for delivery at Montreal. We had to haul them from points farther down on the line. They were not there. They were in the neighbourhood of Moncton when these arrangements were made.


James Clancy: Do I understand the hou. minister to say that the rails which have been sold were rails which they had discarded because they were apparently worn out, or because they were a lighter class of rails than the hon. gentleman is now using ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: We would not use any rails ourselves that we have taken up along the line that were not of a first-class character.


James Clancy: Does that mean 80-pound rails ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: No, you can have a very excellent rail, of less weight which would do for certain classes of work where there were not the same heavy locomotives and trains in use.


James Clancy: Is the hon. gentleman buying any rails less than 80 pounds in weight ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: No.


James Clancy: Not less ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: No. I was going on to explain to the hon. gentleman that we have taken up 56-pound rails, but we have not sold any 56-pound rails in sections-


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Were these rails taken up because they were worn out ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: No, they were taken up and replaced by heavier rails. We have taken up 56-pound rails because they were too light for our purpose. These rails, which are excellent rails, we are putting down on the Prince Edward Island road, where the rail is now in a very dilapidated condition.


Mr. WALLACE.: What is the life of such a rail as that ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I do not know that you could name any definite term. It depends a good deal on the character of your traffic. The life of a 56-pound rail would not be very considerable on such a road as the Intercolonial Railway, or as it will be when all of its trains and engines will be of greatly increased weight.


Charles Edwin Kaulbach: In reference to the old rails that are worn out and discarded, the hon. minister does not mean to say that he sells them for $22 a ton ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I have sold rails for $20 a ton, with carriage added, making $22 or $22.50 a ton. But that is an exceptional thing. I do not imagine that we will have any similar experience in the future. We got the best price we could get for them last year.


Mr. BARKER.: How7 long were these old rails in use ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Most of them, I think I may say all of them, were old rails when they were put down on the Cape Breton branch.


Samuel Barker: I suppose the minister w7ill admit that if their life had expired he w'ould have to replace them out of income. There is no question but that the weight of 56 pounds should be replaced out of income. The fact that he is putting in a heavier rail makes no difference as to that 56 pounds, and he should replace them to that extent out of income, less the value of the scrap. Has the minister done so ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I do not think that would be expected when you are compelled to increase the weight of your rails, not because they are not good themselves but because business interests require it. It would be quite impossible for any railway company because it had to add 15 or 20 pounds a yard to its rails in order to carry its locomotives, to do so out of its earnings on ordinary railway'business principles.


Samuel Barker: It is a mere matter of adjustment. The minister has an old rail, old when it was put down which is now practically out of use. If he did not want to put down a heavier rail he would have to put down a 56-pound rail chargeable to income less the value of the scrap. When he puts dow7n an 80-pound rail he should charge the extra 21 pounds to capital, and the balance, less the value of the scrap, to his working expenses.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: The effect of all that would be that it would take half a century to get your road in proper shape.


Samuel Barker: It would make no difference at all.


Andrew George Blair: 


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: It would make all the difference in the world. You would he simply adding to the capital expenditure of the country in an indirect way, but which you are now doing in a direct way.


Samuel Barker: No. It would be fair to charge your increased weight of rail to capital, but on the principle adopted by the minister he i,s saving in his working expenses on the railway at the expense of the debt of the country. He should charge the 24 pounds extra weight to capital, because that is added to the company's property ; but the oil pounds should be replaced out of working expenses just as if there had been no increase in the weight at all.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Although this question is new to the hon. gentleman (Mr. Barker), we have threshed out the subject over and over again in the discussion of the estimates. I suppose hon. gentlemen will adhere to their opinion while I will adhere to mine. If I take a common-sense view of the attitude of the hon. gentleman (Mr. Barker) he would say this : Here is the Intercolonial Railway which is a government railway, and if it succeeds in making a narrow margin over its actual running expenses in the year it ought to take a million dollars more, apply it to laying down 100 miles of new rail, and show in the accounts it is doing that, not by adding to the debt but out of its earnings when it did not have any earnings, and thus charge it against the public debt in an indirect manner. As a matter of book-keeping that might be done, but after all it is an inconsequential contention because it does not make one particle of difference to the country.


Samuel Barker: It makes all the difference in the world.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: The only difference it makes is that in the one case the new rails would not be laid, or if they were laid in any proportion at all it would be to a very limited extent, because no government could undertake to relay the whole of its line with new rails from end to end as required by the existing necessities of the railway, and do it without asking parliament to countenance its going into debt for the purpose. It is not as though you were simply renewiug a rail which gives out here and there, but, unless you allow the government railway to be a discredit to the country you have to do all this on a large scale and in an expeditious manner.


Samuel Barker: Nobody disputes that for a moment. I am sure the hon. gentlemau (Hon. Mr. Blair) sees clearly that under his system of book-keeping he shows an apparent profit that he has never earned. If the hon. gentleman charged the expense
of renewing the old rails to working expenses-not adding to the property, mind you, but renewing and maintaining his track-he would not have had the surplus which he claims during the last three or four years. The hon. gentleman (Hon. Mr. Blair) "knows that perfectly well. Nobody can be found to dispute the principle that once capital provides a thing, then after that income has to maintain it. In this case capital has provided rails weighing 56 lbs. to the yard, and it is the duty of income to maintain that 56 lbs. afterwards. Under the system adopted by the Minister of Railways he not only escapes the maintenance of that 56-lb. rail, but he is actually getting new rails instead of the old ones out of capital, and that has also the effect that his working expenses in the future are going to be improved at the expense of capital. Instead of being subject to this expense of maintenance year after year he is getting rid of the old rails and getting new ones in their places. He is getting 80-lb. rails as new material, and for several years his working expenses would be cut down by reason of these new rails being charged to the debt of the country. And why does the Minister of Railways do that ? Simply in order that he may make a good showing on his working expenses and on the management of his railway. No railway in the country would ever think of keeping its books in that way. You could never get the Grand Trunk Railway or the Canadian Pacific Railway to make such charges to capital account. If they did, the managers of those companies every few years could add a few pounds to the weight of the rails, and they would never spend a cent for maintenance except the mere cost of relaying. Now, I am' not trying to teach the minister (Hon. Mr. Blair) anything. He understands the matter perfectly well. I simply point out to the committee that the duty of the Minister of Railways is to maintain that 56 lbs. out of his income, less the value of the scrap, and the ouly thing he can properly charge to capital is the extra weight of the rail he puts in.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Will the hon. gentleman (Mr. Barker) just follow me for a moment. We have taken up the old Cape Breton rail which was a second-hand rail when put down


John Graham Haggart: Was not the Cape Breton rail used on the Intercolonial Railway before? I thought that only a part of them were taken up and replaced on the Intercolonial Railway by others, and that a great portion of them were new rails?


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: What difference would it make if they were used on another part of the Intercolonial Railway and transferred I to the Cape Breton Railway. It is all gov-

eminent railway, and they were new rails when originally put down.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: They were inferior rails when they were put down in Cape Breton, and being old rails when they were put dowu they were practically of little more value than they were when they were taken up last year and when they are now being taken up, and when there are 80-lb. new rails substituted for them.
Mr. CLANCY! Does the hon. gentleman mean that they were old rails when originally purchased and put down, or that they were originally put down as new rails, and afterwards removed from one part to another ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: What I state, from information received from my officers, is, that they were old rails when put down on the Cape Breton line. The hon. gentleman would like me to charge them up as new and good rails, of equal quality of new rails of the same weight, although the late government transferred them from one portion of the line to another. I do not think that is a fair or reasonable proposition. We are charging simply the difference between their value as old rails and the value of new 80-pound rails.


Robert Laird Borden: I understand the hon. gentleman to mean that the bookkeeping should be affected by the fact that my hon. friend from Lanark (Hon. Mr. Hag-gart) happened to be the Minister of Railways at that time, while the hon. gentleman happens to be Minister of Railways at this time. If my hon. friend from Lanark were the Minister of Railways now, it would hardly be possible to carry out logically the suggestion which the hon. gentleman makes.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Then, with reference to the 66-pound rails which have been taken up, they are comparatively new rails-as good 56-pound rails as you could probably buy in the market to-day; and on any view that could be taken of the question, I do not think there could be the slightest criticism of the method in which these rails are being treated. They are good rails, and we are treating them as good rails; and they are being put down on the Prince Edward Island road at the same value at which they are being taken up from the main line of the Intercolonial Railway, the difference only being charged.


John Graham Haggart: Do all the rails purchased this year, and last year and the year before, go into the store account-the gross quantity purchased or delivered; and is it then charged out ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: The Deputy Minister tells me | Mr. WALLACE.
that the new rails that have been purchased in times past go into the store account when they are being charged as against revenue. If you buy a large quantity of rails and keep them on hand, and they continue on hand for a term of years, they necessarily go into store account, and are only charged up when laid on the road.


John Graham Haggart: In other words, all the rails you purchased this year and last year and the year before that have not gone into store account at all, but are all charged to capital ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: That is correct.


Mr. HACKETT.: Did I understand the minister to say that second-hand rails which had been placed on the Cape Breton road and used there are now being taken to Prince Edward Island and used for the construction of roads there ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: No, I did not say that. The hon. gentleman quite misunderstood me. I said that we are putting down on the Prince Edward Island road a very superior 59-pound rail, which has been a very short time in use. These rails are taken from the Drummond County Railway, which hon. gentlemen who have followed the discussions with regard to that road know is a road of recent construction. The rails put down on the Prince Edward Island road, if the hon. gentleman has seen them and knows anything about rails, he will say are very excellent rails.


John Graham Haggart: Wrhen I had control of the Intercolonial Railway, there were a certain number of miles of railway to be renewed every year, and the rails used for this purpose were always charged to income. These never went into store account. The hon. gentleman has charged the full amount of the renewal of the road to capital account. While on my feet, I would like the hon. minister to tell me what English companies competed for these rails, and the prices they asked. I would also ask him whether he has any assurance that the smelting works will be built at Sault Ste. Marie in time to deliver the rails or any of them next fall ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I cannot from memory tell the hon. gentleman the names of the English companies that tendered, but I will get the information. I remember that the price was $32.75 per ton, and that there were eight or ten firms tendering. I think they must have had a tacit understanding among themselves, for I think, though I would not he positive on the point, that most of the tenders were at the same figure.


James Clancy: Where was the delivery to take place ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I think at Montreal.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: Did the manufacturers pay the duty ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: They were not to have paid any duty on the rails. All the tenders we invited on the basis of price free of duty. With regal'd to the manufacture of rails at Sault Ste. Marie, I can only tell the hon. gentleman that before we placed this sum in the estimates, we had a communication with the company. We asked them not to mislead us in any way,' but to let us know with absolute confidence whether we could count on receiving the rails or any portion of them in the time specified.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: When was the contract made ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Last fall or early in the winter. The proposition was laid before us, before the last session of parliament. We were not able to give it consideration while parliament was in session, but immediately after the session and as soon as we could, we opened up negotiations and came to an understanding with the company. Just what that date was I am not at the moment able to say.


John Graham Haggart: Will the hon. gentleman have the contract and those tenders immediately after dinner.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I do not know whether I correctly understood the hon. minister that these rails, when used for a new siding, were charged to capital account, but when they were put on an old siding they were charged to current account ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: If we were simply renewing work which had been done before, that would be charged against current account.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Does the hon. minister not see that these rails are twice charged to capital account ? When purchased originally, they were charged to capital account, and when put down on a new siding they are again charged to capital account ? It seems to me it demoralizes the bookkeeping badly.


John Graham Haggart: How does the hon. gentleman get credit for the $15 old rails that go into the store account, when all the rails that are purchased and laid on the road never enter the store account at all ?


Samuel Barker: When the hon. gentleman gets old rails into sidings, at what rate does he charge out the rails-at scrap rate, $15 a ton ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Yes.


Samuel Barker: Is the hon. gentleman certain about that, because some of the items seem to indicate otherwise ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Certainly. We might let this item stand, Mr. Chairman.
Railways and Canals-Chargeable to Capital- Railways-Intercolonial Railway-To complete highway bridge at Rocky Lake, $3,000.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: This will complete the expenditure of $8,000 for the purposes of diverting the highway and avoiding three existing dangerous level crossings. My hon. friend from Halifax (Mr. Borden) knows the location of this work.


Robert Laird Borden: That is between Windsor Junction and Halifax ? I know that there are dangerous level crossings there.


John Graham Haggart: Why do you charge a highway bridge to capital account on a road finished so long ago as that between Windsor and Halifax ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: This is an entirely new bridge. It would be as reasonable not to charge any portion of the Intercolonial Railway to capital account, as to say that when you are going to make the road additionally safe by means of an entirely new structure you cannot properly charge it to capital.


John Graham Haggart: This is a new principle.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: No. Here are three dangerous crossings on the level. It is desirable in the interests of the public that these dangerous crossings should be done away with. We make a diversion of the road and put in a new bridge, and we think we are fairly entitled to charge it to capital.


John Graham Haggart: You do not charge the diversion, but only the bridge to capital.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: That is as I understand it, but I am not sure. No, I see I was wrong, and that the whole work, including the diversion, is charged to capital.
Railways and Canals-Chargeable to Capital- Railways-Intercolonial Railway-To build new and enlarge old engine houses, $75,000.


John Graham Haggart: What is this ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Last year we appropriated $140,000 for this purpose. We have not yet expended the whole of that amount, but it will be expended by the end of the fiscal year. The works are estimated to cost $215,000, so that we are asking for the balance of what will be needed. This will enlarge some of the existing houses to ac-

commodate the larger engines, and we also propose to build new engine houses at places where they are needed.


James Clancy: How many new ones ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: We are building new ones at Chaudiere and Stellarton.


Samuel Barker: How many new engines does the hon. minister propose to accommodate ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: By the end of the current year we shall have at least eighty-five new engines of the 82-ton size.


Samuel Barker: But the hon. gentleman has only increased the number by about twenty in the last three or four years.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Yes, but I have sixty-six under contract. We are enlarging the buildings at Campbellton, Ste. Flavie and Sydney. We are also lengthening the stalls at other engine houses, concerning which I have not the minute details at hand.


James Clancy: What do the new engine houses cost ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: The engine house at Chaudiere will cost $60,000, and that at Stellarton between $55,000 and $60,000.


James Clancy: This represents an expenditure of only $120,000, and the balance of this $215,000 will be consumed in repairing other engine houses ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: In enlarging and adding to them. For instance, I have seen the work in progress at Campbellton. We are taking out the wall, adding to the building and extending the pits and tracks.


Mr. CLARKE.: Is all this work being done by tender ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Yes.


Samuel Barker: How many stalls are being added at each place where enlargement is made ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: The number varies from fifteen to twenty-five-perhaps twenty would be the average.


Samuel Barker: The hon. gentleman does not propose to add as many as twenty at each place ? I am asking about those that are to be enlarged.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I am speaking of the ones enlarged.


Andrew George Blair: 


Samuel Barker: Is it not possible to give the exact number in each case ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: That could be given, but I have not the information here.


Mr. GOURLEY.: I happened to be in the railway roundhouse at Truro a little while before coming here, and I saw one of these fine new engines, being moved on the turntable, and it looked very much as if the whole thing would break down. The workmen said, that an accident, accompanied with great loss of property, might occur any day ; because the engines were so much larger than the turntable was originally constructed to handle. I would ask the hon. gentleman to give this matter his attention, because if one of these turntables, should break down, the loss of public property would be far greater than the cost of renewing the table. We should have a new roundhouse, with all modern equipments, at Truro. I earnestly call the Ministers attention to this state of affairs.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: What the hon. gentleman says is entirely correct, and it is the same ail over the line. When we are changing from a forty and forty-five and fifty ton engine to an eighty-two ton engine, you can well imagine there would be risks. The officers of my department and myself are fully sensible of the importance of having our turntables enlarged, and our engine houses enlarged as rapidly as possible. We are doing that as rapidly as we can, and Truro is not being overlooked.


Seymour Eugene Gourley: Do you contemplate Truro in this present vote ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I think there will be something in the supplementaries.


John Graham Haggart: Will the minister bring down after dinner information in detail of this large expenditure ?
The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS >,ND CANALS. I can give the hon. gentleman 'the details now, except in respect to the stalls. But I do not think that we have had from the engineers any memo, of the plans of the different engine houses. At Stellarton the engine house is estimated to cost $58,500, and a turntable, $9,500. The Campbellton engine house is costing $25,000: the engine house at St. Flavie is estimated to cost $25,000 ; that at Sydney, $75,000 ; that at Chaudiere, $60,000. The enlargement of the stalls in other engine houses is put down at $12,000. I can get the information in respect to the stalls if the hon. gentleman desires it.
Increased accommodation at Sydney, $100,000.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: The hon. gentleman will remember that I included in the first amount $25,-

2G46-
000 for the Sydney engine house. When that estimate was sent forward we were providing for six stalls in that engine house; after that came, it was found necessary to increase the number and we are putting in twelve additonal stalls in the Sydney engine house, the cost of which forms a portion of the present amount of $100,000. These additional stalls, boiler, engine house and foundations, will cost $50,000 in addition to the $25,000 that has already been asked for in a previous vote. Then we have to lay out a yard, and prepare grounds and tracks, all of which will cost $50,000 more.


Robert Laird Borden: Has there been any arrangement made with respect to running passenger trains into Sydney and North Sydney other than that which has hitherto prevailed ? There was a good deal of dissatisfaction in one of the towns, at least, with respect to the delay which took place.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: We are about getting out time tables, and when the new time table comes out we expect finally to settle that question, which has given rise, I think, to a good deal of unreasonable controversy, though there may be a difference of opinion. It is not to be wondered at that the people of Sydney complained of the delay in the arrival of trains by reason of their being shunted off to North Sydney. I think I stated last year that my own view was that such a condition ought not to continue ; and I think we will be able to give a service to both Sydney and North Sydney which will be satisfactory to all concerned.


John Graham Haggart: Sydney is where the steel works are being erected ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Yes.


John Graham Haggart: As it is nearly six o'clock, I will remind the hon. minister of the notice that I put upon the paper some time ago for the purpose of eliciting information from the Railway Department that we would like to get very much for the purpose of discussing the state of affairs on the Intercolonial Railway. Among the payments is a sum of $4,527,807, including railway and canal collections. Now, I want a separate statement of the canal collections from the railways. The notice has been on the paper for ten days, and the minister has been promising to get the information day after day. Then there is a sum here of the receipts and payments of canals, this is the ten-days' statement. There is the railways and canals consolidated fund of $118,972, I would like to know what constitutes that item. I suppose that nothing of capital account appears in this statement at all.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I am not able to separate The canal collections from the railway collections this evening, but we will not get
through these railway estimates to-night, and my hon. friend will have another opportunity "of getting this information placed in his hands, and he will have another chance to discuss it.


John Graham Haggart: I suppose the hon. gentleman is going to make a statement of his whole management of the Intercolonial Railway, and I would like to have this information before he makes that statement. He will find the question was put on March 29th by my hon. friend from Hamilton (Mr. Barker).


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I rememb'er that the question came up, and I was obliged to inform my hon. friend that I had not received the information from Moncton, but the deputy minister informs me that it will be ready to-morrow.


Mr. PUTTEE.: Are tenders let for these improvements that are going on under contract ?	.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Yes.


Arthur W. Puttee: Does the minister include-in these contracts the current wage clause as a specification 1


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Well, I do not think it has been customary on the Intercolonial Railway. We have not yet met with any difficulty at aii except this, that probably the general effect of what has taken place in parliament and out of parliament in regard to wages has added quite a material amount to the cost of labour 1 do not say I regret that, nor do I say that it ought not to have been so, but that has been the effect. We have not found it necessary to include any clause in our contracts in order to secure the payment of a proper and reasonable wage.


Arthur W. Puttee: The hon. minister will remember that the resolution passed by this House last year called for its application to all government works, and surely a contract of this kind must be considered a government contract, even although it is on the Intercolonial Railway. It seems to me that it should be included, and as the hon. minister admits that the cost of labour has already been increased it will not further increase the cost.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: It is not a very easy thing, if I may remind the hon. gentleman, with the multiplicity of small contracts we are making on the Intercolonial Railway to carry out his wish. We would have to make a very considerable addition to our working staff in order to pursue these details, and unless there was some good reason for taking on this additional burden we would not feel like doing it. We would not want

to incur that expense. I am quite sure tliat if there had been any ground for complaint at all in reference to the amount of wages that is being paid we would have heard of it. I do not find that the people are at all slow in making such things known to the department. We have never heard anything of that kind in reference to the contracts we have made. These contracts are small matters, and you would encumber them very much.


Arthur W. Puttee: They may be small matters, although the items are not very small. I do not think this would increase the cost of the Railway Department at all. We have a Labour Department now. We are going to be asked to vote $50,000 for that department, and we should give the department something to do. I think the Labour Department could take hold of this matter.
At six o'clock, the committee took recess.
After Eecess.
Committee resumed at eight o'clock.
Administration of Justice-Miscellaneous expenditure, including North-west Territories. $37,000.


Robert Laird Borden: What is this miscellaneous expenditure ? I see the amount is exactly the same as last year.


The SOLICITOR GENERAL.: This Is the customary amount for federal purposes, and includes fees in the North-west Territories for Crown prosecutors, sheriffs, clerks of the court, maintenance and transport of prisoners, coroners' inquests, copies of evidence in applications for executive clemency and general expenditures of that description in the North-west Territories, and also here at headquarters.


Robert Laird Borden: What was the expenditure last year ?


The SOLICITOR GENERAL.: The total amount voted was expended.
Travelling allowances, court of King's Bench and county court judges, Manitoba, $3,000.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: There is an increase here.


The SOLICITOR GENERAL.: There is an increase of $500, because the amount of $2,500 voted last year proved to be inadequate. An increase is asked for because of the increased business in Manitoba.


Robert Laird Borden: Would this represent the travelling expenses or allowance for judges on circuit ?


The SOLICITOR GENERAL.: The judges receive a per diem allowance of $6. This is not an exorbitant charge when you consider expenses in that part of the country. Circuit allowances to judges ad hoc, $200.


Robert Laird Borden: What is the occasion of payments to judges ad hoc ?


Andrew George Blair: 


The SOLICITOR GENERAL.: In the event of a judge being disqualified in any district, or in the event of not being able, to have a judge to send on circuit. They send a judge out specially for the purpose of taking a case in which the judge would be disqualified.


Robert Laird Borden: Is this restricted to any province or is it applicable to the Dominion as a whole ?


The SOLICITOR GENERAL.: I am not able to say where that expenditure was made last year, but I do not anticipate that it is applicable to any particular province. I cannot say whether it was expended last year or whether any portion of it was expended.


Robert Laird Borden: I know that in my own province sometimes a county court judge is disqualified and a judge from another district comest to take his place, but, I supposed that would be dealt with as a circuit allowance for a county court judge.


The SOLICITOR GENERAL.: In the province of Quebec that is the way it is dealt with. I have no present recollection of that particular item or as to the purposes for which it is expended. It is only a matter of $200.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Has it been expended ?


The SOLICITOR GENERAL.: I am not able to say whether it was expended last year or not. I am quite willing to allow that item to stand if hon. gentlemen desire it.


Robert Laird Borden: I do not think the hon. gentleman need let it stand, but he may mention it again.


The SOLICITOR GENERAL.: I find here a memorandum which says that this vote is occasionally required, but it has not been drawn on this year.
To provide for the enforcement of the Alien Labour law, $9,000.


Arthur W. Puttee: How is that vote used ?


The SOLICITOR GENERAL.: Up to the present, a very small proportion of this item has been expended. Hitherto the administration of the Alien Labour Act has been in charge of the Department of Justice, but now it has been transferred to the Postmaster General, and it will be for him to explain in the future how this vote is used.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Did it cost us $9,000 last year ?


The SOLICITOR GENERAL.: It only cost us $966.66.


Robert Laird Borden: I would rather be inclined to think that a smaller vote would be required than formerly, for the reason that under the new legislation the enforcement of this Act is left to private

individuals in the provinces, under the sanction of the provincial Attorney General, or of a judge. I do not at present quite see the necessity for so large a vote, but I would not feel inclined to say that this amount should not be voted if the Solicitor General will tell us that it reasonably might be required.


The SOLICITOR GENERAL.: I did not understand from the Bill introduced the other day that the law would be left entirely to the initiative of private individuals. They would put the law in motion, but I am not quite sure that to a large extent the government may not be responsible for expenditure connected with the administration of the law as heretofore.


Robert Laird Borden: It is quite true there is nothing in the Bill to prevent the government from proceeding to enforce the law, but, on the other hand, there is nothing in the Bill which would enable the government to indemnify a private prosecutor who acted on his own responsibility.


The SOLICITOR GENERAL.: Judging from the experience of the past, I do not think it likely all this money will be used, but, at all events, it cannot do any harm to place a sufficient sum at our disposal.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Unless the government show greater alacrity in enforcing the law in the future than in the past, a couple hundred dollars would be sufficient.
Penitentiaries generally, $3,560.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What is the increase of $160 for ?


The SOLICITOR GENERAL.: There is an annual increase of $30 in the salary of the stenographer, and $130 for office contingencies. This is the first increase in this item that has taken place during six years.
Kingston penitentiary, $190,500.


The SOLICITOR GENERAL.: There is an increase of $100 to provide for an assistant for the farm instructor, the extent of the farm having been increased by fifty acres last year.
St. Vincent de Paul penitentiary, $111,700.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I would like to ask the Solicitor General if he knows whether the two guards who were found guilty of an assault on the ex-warden are still in the employ of the government ? I may mention that during the last election five of these guards, in a -premeditated manner, arranged to assault the ex-warden after a political meeting, and pursuant to that arrangement did assault him. The ex-warden was very seriously hurt. They were brought before a magistrate and were found guilty, or pleaded guilty to aggravated assault, and subsequently they withdrew their plea. They were taken before another magistrate, and two of them were found guilty of simple assault. The whole affair was very unsatisfactory, but what I wonder is, if these two guaTds, who were condemned to a fine, have been dismissed from the service. I may tell the Solicitor General that during the past election many of the employees of the St. Vincent de Paul penitentiary were actively engaged in the work of the election. I saw some of them myself at political meetings, but the case of these two guards is one which deserves special attention.


The SOLICITOR GENERAL.: I am not in a position to say whether the two guards referred to have been dismissed. My present opinion is that they have not been ; that they paid the fine to which they were condemned. With regard to the charge that the people of St. Vincent de Paul took part in the election, I know nothing about it ; but, I would accept the word of my hon. friend (Mr. Monk) when he says he knows it of his own knowledge. I am afraid, however, that that is a tradition of long standing at St. Vincent de Paul, and it should be made to disappear.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: It is quite possible it has existed in the past, but the Solicitor General should see that some kind of check should be put upon it in the future.
Dorchester penitentiary, $54,500.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What is the explanation of this increase of $900 ?


The SOLICITOR GENERAL.: It is to provide for a masonry instructor, whose salary will be $700, and the other $200 is for that amount under-estimated last year.
Regina jail, $10,600.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: There is an increase here of $1,100.


The SOLICITOR GENERAL.: There is an increase in salaries of $500, which has become necessary to provide for a night engineer; an increase in the maintenance of prisoners of $300, due to an increase in the price of beef and other provisions; and an increase of $300 in working expenses.
Administration of justice in the Yukon territory-Additional salary of judge, $1,000.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: If you paid the judge $4,000 before, why should he get $5,000 now ?


The SOLICITOR GENERAL.: The experience we have had during the last two years has led to the conclusion that the salaries of the officials in the Yukon are too low to enable them to live even in moderate comfort, and it is proposed to allow the judges $5,000 a year each, with $250 a month for living allowance, and the sheriff and clerk of the court $3,000 a year each, with $150 a month for living allowance. My hon. friend will realize that $5,000 a year to a judge of the high court in the Yukon, who is called upon to administer the laws and decide matters of very great importance, is not ex-I orbitant. It is the salary paid to the high

court judges In Ontario and the superior court judges in Quebec.	*


Robert Laird Borden: Why do you have the words ' authorized by statute ' attached to the vote of the salary of one judge, and not to the other ?


The SOLICITOR GENERAL.: Because there is provision made by the statute for only one judge. A vote was taken last year for an additional judge.


Robert Laird Borden: Under what authority was the second judge appointed ?


The SOLICITOR GENERAL.: Under the authority of the vote in the estimates. If the salary is provided, the judge can be appointed.


Robert Laird Borden: If a statute creates a court and authorizes one judge, I do not suppose you would appoint another judge simply by voting a salary to him ?


The SOLICITOR GENERAL.: The statute provides for the appointment of one or more judges. Therefore the statutory salary is for one, and then we vote an additional salary for the other.


Robert Laird Borden: Then I understand that the authority for the appointment of the second judge was statutory.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I do not wish to complain at all of the increase of salary for the Yukon judges, because I have no doubt that the conditions of life change there ; nor do I wish to reopen the question of the salaries of other judges, because that has already been fully treated in the House. But I would like to ask the Solicitor General if the government have under consideration, with the hope of any prompt solution, the question of a readjustment of the salaries of the judges of the province of Quebec. The Solicitor General is well aware that the judges of the city of Montreal are admittedly underpaid; and if changed conditions in the Yukon necessitate an increase, the conditions in the city of Montreal changed long ago, and the present salaries of the judges there are totally insufficient. I understand that the judges in the city of Toronto have grants of some kind from the local legislature, which bring their remuneration up to $1,000 over the remuneration of the judges in the same position in the city of Montreal.


The SOLICITOR GENERAL.: They have other advantages also.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: The members of the bar who know the situation of the judges in the city of Montreal, and the great increase in the cost of living there, know that their position is rapidly becoming intolerable. They cannot move in the matter, and that makes it all the more the duty of those who see what they go through to bring the matter to the attention of the proper authorities.


Mr. FITZPATRICK.: 


The SOLICITOR GENERAL.: I may say that speaking in another place, the Minister of Justice stated that he had then under consideration a Bill to provide for increasing the salaries of the judges throughout the country. Speaking for myself, and judging from the work done by the judges in the province of Quebec, they are all undoubtedly underpaid for the services they perform. The comparison with the province of Ontario is to the disadvantage of our judges ; but that is a matter over which we have absolutely no control, because the local legislature provides that the judges shall receive $1,000 a year each, in addition to their salaries, until such time as their salaries shall be increased by the Dominion to $6,000, when the allowance of the province shall cease. Personally I think the salaries of the judges throughout the whole Dominion of Canada ought to be increased.


John Graham Haggart: Is the salary for the additional judge mentioned here authorized by statute ?


The SOLICITOR GENERAL.: The appointment of both judges is provided for by statute.
Salary of sheriff of Yukon territorial court, in addition to such fees of office as may be allowed by the Governor in Council, $3,000.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Is there no tariff of fees for the sheriff except what is allowed him by the Governor in Council ?


The SOLICITOR GENERAL.: Out of the fees they are allowed to take an amount sufficient to bring their net salary up to $4,000 after having paid certain amounts to their deputies.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: There is $1,000 added. Then, will the fees which they are allowed to collect just make up the difference between that and $4,000 ?


The SOLICITOR GENERAL.: There is a tariff of fees established in the Yukon as payable to sheriffs and other deputies, just as in the older provinces-not the same amounts, of course, but fixed. Out of the fees these officers receive, they are entitled to take a sum sufficient to make their salaries $4,000. They account for the balance, paying it over to the Yukon officials entitled to receive, or to the Receiver General.


Robert Laird Borden: Apparently, the additional fees have not been enough to make the salaries up to $4,000.


The SOLICITOR GENERAL.: Up to the present time that is the case.


Seymour Eugene Gourley: As to these living allowances-I thought that the salary of the judge was for him to live on, but I see he has a living allowance in addition to $3,000. Does the judge account for it in any way ? If his living expenses were only $500, would he be given the $3,000 ?


The SOLICITOR GENERAL.: No. He renders an account to the department, which is vouched for by the officials of the department in accordance with the rules of the Auditor General's office. I may say that there is not a great deal left of the living allowance each year.


Seymour Eugene Gourley: The conditions of the Yukon are greatly changed, are they not ? They tell me, that one can go there, in three or four days, from British Columbia. What makes living so expensive there ?


The SOLICITOR GENERAL.: I have not been there recently, but I understand that it costs considerably more to live in the Yukon than to live in any other part of the Dominion.


Seymour Eugene Gourley: But going to the Yukon is a mere pleasure trip now. There are a lot of people, in my own Province, who intend going there this summer, for a pleasure trip.


The SOLICITOR GENERAL.: It may be delightful in the summer, but I am not sure that it would be the same in winter.


Seymour Eugene Gourley: But the supplies are taken in, in the summer, when carriage is least expensive. It is no part of our training, in my part of the country, to haggle about these little matters. But I would rather see the $3,000 added to the judge's salary and be done with it.
Services in the Yukon Territory-Administration of Justice-Living allowances of sheriff and clerk of court, $1,800 each, $3,600.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Here is an increase of


The SOLICITOR GENERAL.: The Intention Is to allow the sheriff and the clerk a living allowance. This is in accordance with the amount now paid to the officials in the territory, $150 a month.


Robert Laird Borden: As the hon. member for Colchester truly observes, we naturally suppose that the cost of living in the Yukon is growing less, becoming more like what it is in the older provinces. But these allowances are being Increased. Can the Solicitor General tell us the reason of that ?


The SOLICITOR GENERAL.: Originally, when the officials were sent in, in 1897, a certain amount was allowed as living allowance. But it was afterwards found not at all sufficient to maintain them. The necessity for an increase has become apparent from actual experience. I think my hon. friends who are at all familiar with the Auditor General's administration may feel perfectly satisfied that there is nothing allowed to these officials to which they are not entitled. This is not a sum which they may have and dispose of as they please. They have to account for it. They make their claim, which is not allowed unless it
is established to the satisfaction of the Auditor General.


Seymour Eugene Gourley: They seem like princely establishments.


The SOLICITOR GENERAL.: I am not sure that there is anything princely about them.


John Graham Haggart: Has the Solicitor General the date of the statute fixing the salaries for officers of the Yukon territorial court ?


The SOLICITOR GENERAL.: It must have been 1897-1 will send for it.


Mr. ERASER.: Anything like a decent house in Dawson City will cost a rental of $2,000 a year.


Seymour Eugene Gourley: I should like to have been informed of that before.
Services in the Yukon Territory-Administration of Justice-Maintenance of prisoners, $20,000.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: On what system are the prisoners taken care of out there ?


The SOLICITOR GENERAL.: Just as in the older provinces. Provision is made to give them what they are fairly entitled to as prisoners.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Has the Solicitor General any idea what it costs per capita ?


The SOLICITOR GENERAL.: I did not think of making inquiry, and have not the information at hand. I could get the information.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I understood that in the past the expenses were very high, but I think no information has been given to the House on this subject on any previous occasion. It seems to me it would be a matter of some importance to have these facts.


The SOLICITOR GENERAL.: I am satisfied, if my hon. friend wishes, to give that information on concurrence.
Services in the Yukon Territory-Administration of Justice-Transport of prisoners, $5,000.


Robert Laird Borden: This is altogether new, apparently.


The SOLICITOR GENERAL.: This is intended to repay to the mounted police appropriation the sums paid for expenses incurred in moving prisoners from place of arrest to place of confinement.


Robert Laird Borden: Then, a similar reduction should be made in the mounted police estimates, as this seems to be a- matter of book-keeping. Can the Solicitor General tell us whether that appropriation has been reduced ?


The SOLICITOR GENERAL.: I do not know. As I am informed, they return vouchers to the Department of Justice for this particular service, and we pay the amount. That would imply, as I understand

it, that there has been an increase in the expenditure of the mounted police.


Robert Laird Borden: But, if there is an increase here to repay an amount to the mounted golice, I should think there must be a corresponding reduction somewhere else.


The SOLICITOR GENERAL.: Yes, if there was the same amount of work done.


Robert Laird Borden: In previous years, how was this charged ?


The SOLICITOR GENERAL.: The work was not done, I presume, until quite recently, until the last year or so. This expenditure, I presume, has become necessary as the result of the settling of the country.


Robert Laird Borden: But, within the last year or two this must have appeared in the expenditure of the mounted police.


The SOLICITOR GENERAL.: I apprehend that until it became a large amount they would pay it and not seek to be recouped by the Department of Justice. But, when it increased to so large an amount as $5,000, and as it is part of the administration of justice, they wish the Department of Justice to bear it. That is the explanation which suggests itself to my mind at present.


Robert Laird Borden: No doubt my hon. friend (Mr. Fitzpatrick) is right. Still, it would seem to me there should be a reduction of some amount of the estimates of the mounted police.


The SOLICITOR GENERAL.: I would suggest that my hon, friend (Mr. Borden, Halifax) might hold that question over until the estimates of the mounted police are under discussion.


Robert Laird Borden: Does the hon. gentleman have charge of those estimates ?


The SOLICITOR GENERAL.: No.


Robert Laird Borden: 1 can see the reason why he wished to put it off on some one else. Who has charge of the mounted police ?


The SOLICITOR GENERAL.: The Prime Minister.


Robert Laird Borden: Perhaps me right hon. gentleman (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) could tell ns about that ?
Services in the Yukon Territory-Administration of Justice-Witness and jury fees in criminal trials, $15,000.


Robert Laird Borden: There is an increase here of $8,000.


The SOLICITOR GENERAL.: Yes, the explanation I have is that last year the vote was $7,000, and it was reported by the judges and the Crown prosecutor as too small. I asked for information to enable me to estimate the amount accurately. I was told that they have not got at the pres-Mr. FITZPATRICK.
ent time in the Department of Justice sufficient data to estimate exactly the amount required. The amount asked for is largely tentative.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Is Mr. Wade the Crown prosecutor in the Yukon ?


The SOLICITOR GENERAL.: I cannot say, but we do not address the Crown prosecutor in a matter of this kind.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Have the department changed their system, which prevailed some time ago, where the government prosecutor could at the same time do ordinary professional work, as Mr. Wade did, in connection with the vessel where he took a case for the prosecution and the same case for the defence ?


The SOLICITOR GENERAL.: I think the Crown prosecutor would have the same privilege as in the other provinces. In Quebec the Crown prosecutor takes private practice as well as doing Crown business.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: But the facts were stated in this House, and not denied, and I think they were substantiated. Out of the deposit that the owner of the vessel made as a guarantee that he would stand his trial, the Crown prosecutor took $700. At the same time he was giving the defendant advice, he was being paid a salary by the government.


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: The hon. gentleman is entirely mistaken. The charge, or the suggestion, was made by the hon. member for Pictou (Sir Charles Hibbert Tupper) in the House, that Mr. Wade had charged both sides of the case. I stated then I was perfectly satisfied that the statement was made without evidence of any kind. When Mr. Wade saw the report he telegraphed me a denial, and asked me to bring it up in the House.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What became of the man's money ? My remembrance of the statement made by the member for Pictou is, that out of the $900 deposited by the vessel-owner as a guarantee that he would stand his trial, $700 was retained by Mr. Wade.


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: I think every lawyer in the House will agree with me that the thing is so outrageous as to be incredible. In my experience I never heard of a lawyer even being charged with the offence. If there was the least possible doubt about it, I am sure the Department of Justice would have looked into it. All I remember is that the member for Pictou made the statement, and subsequently a telegram or a letter came from Mr. Wade positively denying it.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: But, the statement was deliberately made in the presence of many members of this House, that the owner of the vessel went to Mr. Wade for advice, and received advice from him, regarding

the very case concerning -which Mr. Wade was advising the collector of customs who seized the vessel. That statement is in the ' Hansard.' The charge was made, whether the Minister of the Interior remembers it or not.
The	MINISTER	OP	THE	INTERIOR.
I remember the charge, but there was certainly no evidence.


Mr. BLAIN.: I would like to ask the Solicitor General what position Mr. W. H. P. Clement occupies in the	Yukon territory ?
The	MINISTER	OP	THE	INTERIOR.
None at the present time. He resigned some time last summer.


Richard Blain: He is not now in the employ of the government ?
The	MINISTER	OP	THE	INTERIOR.
No.


Robert Laird Borden: The criticism which my hon. friend from East Grey (Mr. Sproule) referred to was made in the House last year. It was to the effect that while Mr. Wade was acting as legal adviser he was engaged in private practice. That was a thing that I do not- think the Minister of the Interior himself was much inclined to defend, because after the criticism was made upon it or before, he put a stop to it. It was a very bad thing, particularly under the peculiar conditions which existed in the Yukon at the time, that a lawyer should be advising the government and at the same time be at liberty to practice among individuals. However, the Minister of the Interior did stop it, but he should never have permitted it to begin. The other circumstance to which the member for Grey referred had something to do with the customs. According to my remembrance, the criticism was to the effect that Mr. Wade was acting for the collector of Customs and was also acting for one of the persons who had .some dispute before that collector.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: A vessel came into port and was seized for violation of the customs law. The vessel-owner desired to take his vessel out within a few days, as otherwise it would be frozen in, and that would be a serious loss to him. He decided, to satisfy the officials that he would stand his trial, to put up a deposit, I think the amount was $900, if they would allow the vessel out so that he might get it away before the river froze over. The vessel was then released, but I believe was afterwards seized again. In the meantime, while Mr. Wade was giving advice to the collector of customs, the vessel-owner was getting advice from Mr. Wade as the defendant in the case ; and out of the deposit which was put up as a guarantee that he would stand his trial, Mr. Wade kept $700. If my memory is correct, Mr. Wade said that that was to pay for his charges in connection with the case, and the vessel-owner did not get it back.


Richard Blain: Could the hon. gentleman tell me if the position Mr. Clement occupied was abolished, or was some person appointed in his stead ?


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: Mr. Connolly, of Halifax, was appointed in his stead.


John Graham Haggart: What are the names of the two judges there ?


The SOLICITOR GENERAL.: Judge Craig and Judge Dugas. Judge Dugas was appointed in 1897 or 1898, and Judge Craig was appointed last year.


John Graham Haggart: I do not see any provision for their salaries under the Act.


Robert Laird Borden: I did not quite gather from the Solicitor General the reasons for the increase of $8,000 in this vote, more than 100 per cent.


The SOLICITOR GENERAL.: The reason is based entirely upon the returns made by the judges and the Crown prosecutor of the district, namely, that the amount voted heretofore, $7,000, was entirely inadequate. At the same time, I have to admit to my hon. friend that we have not got sufficiently detailed information to enable us to say that $12,000 or $14,000 will be sufficient, and we are obliged to ask for $15,000 to meet the exigencies of the case.


Robert Laird Borden: How much was necessary last year ?


The SOLICITOR GENERAL.: I cannot say, but we were $3,000 or $4,000 short last year.
Law books, &c., and freight thereon for the use of the bench and bar, and stationery and freight thereon for territorial court, $2,500.


The SOLICITOR GENERAL.: The increase is made up by the enormous expenditure we have been obliged to make for freight. The greater portion of the money was used in paying freight charges. We have asked for $500 additional so that If possible we may have $2,000 free for the purchase of books.
Miscellaneous expenses, Including fees and expenses of Crown prosecutor, salaries and living allowances of stenographers for territorial a,nd police courts, and other officials or employees connected with the administration of justice, coroners' inquests, &c., &e., $30,000.


The SOLICITOR GENERAL.: This is a very large increase, but it is caused by the fact that last year the amount was entirely insufficient. As a matter of fact last year a portion of the expenditure named in this item was met by the Interior Department. There are four stenographers, two for the high court and two for the police court. Each of these men receive $3,000, making over $10,000 for stenographers alone.


Robert Laird Borden: How much was expended last year ? The vote was $8,000.


The SOLICITOR GENERAL.: I cannot say. '


Robert Laird Borden: Can you give us any idea ?


The SOLICITOR GENERAL.: No, I cannot ; I am not in a position to tell you because the whole amount that was expended in excess was paid by the Interior Department.


Robert Laird Borden: Is this designed to cover what was expended by the Justice Department as well as by the Interior Department ?


The SOLICITOR GENERAL.: No, it is designed to cover what ought to have been expended by the Justice Department, and which was expended in part by the Interior Department.


Robert Laird Borden: 
The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: I have not the particulars here, but I can give them to the hon. gentleman to-morrow.


Robert Laird Borden: As this is a very large increase, perhaps the hon. Solicitor General would not mind allowing it to stand.


The SOLICITOR GENERAL.: I am quite satisfied to allow it to stand.


Seymour Eugene Gourley: I am not as familiar with the territorial court in the Yukon as I ought to be. I see you have two stenographers for the police court. Is that another name for the territorial court ?


The SOLICITOR GENERAL.: You have the high court judges, and then in addition to that you have the police court.


Seymour Eugene Gourley: Has It just the ordinary jurisdiction of a municipal court ?


The SOLICITOR GENERAL.: The ordinary jurisdiction of a police court for the trial of summary cases.


Seymour Eugene Gourley: What is the need of stenographers ? We do not have any stenographers in the eastern police courts.


The SOLICITOR GENERAL.: We have them in many cases in our province. There are two in Montreal and one in Quebec.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Not in the police court.


The SOLICITOR GENERAL.: My hon. friend will have to allow me to insist. I have been in the police court-not as a defendant-quite recently.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: There is one in the criminal court and the court of sessions.


The SOLICITOR GENERAL.: Investigations are taken down now in short hand.


Robert Laird Borden: 


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Preliminary investigations.


The SOLICITOR GENERAL.: All the preliminary investigations are taken down by stenographers ; at least that is when the magistrate desires it for the criminal court. There is one of these stenographers who takes evidence in the criminal court for the benefit of the judge.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: In preliminary investigations.


The SOLICITOR GENERAL.: It would be for preliminary investigations. There are two in Montreal and one in Quebec.


Seymour Eugene Gourley: I am very glad to hear that you have all these luxuries. We will endeavour to imitate you.


The SOLICITOR GENERAL.: I would like to remind the hon. gentleman (Mr. Gourley) that when he proceeds to imitate what we do in the Yukon it will be at the expense of his province.


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: The hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Borden) will find particulars of the amounts paid by the Interior Department last year that he asked for, and which properly should have been paid by the Justice Department at L- 46 of the Auditor General's Report. The items are as follows :-
Stenographer, police court .... $ 192	46
Clerk	
450	00Stenographer	
250	00Stenographer	
1,881	45Janitor	
120	00Stenographer	
337	50Cook	
137	42Caretaker	
400	00Stenographer	
18	00Stenographer	
1,335	47Stenographer	
1,900	00Stenographer	
1,900	00
Altogether we paid out about $11,000 or


The SOLICITOR GENERAL.: Would my hon. friend (Mr. Borden) have any objection to allowing the item to pass with this explanation ?


Robert Laird Borden: I think not.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I have now the item to which I referred, and I want to give a little of the information contained in 'Hansard' to satisfy the hon. Minister of the Interior that what I said had some foundation in fact. On a motion to adjourn Sir Charles Hibbert Tupper refers to the matter. He is speaking of Mr. D. W. Davis, collector of customs, and his conduct in connection with the seizure of the vessel called the Yukoner. He says :
He was asked, in compliance with the advice of the Department of Justice, to account for his conduct, to disgorge the money that he had taken out of the hands of a company doing business in the Yukon, instead of which he handed

it over to Mr. F. C. Wade, of exceptional notoriety, the gentleman who holds so many government offices, and in connection with these offices is able to obtain extraordinary treatment for his clients every time he has to deal with the government. A public company, owning the steamer ' Yukoner,' an English company, incorporated in London, sends that ship into Canadian waters. The law is violated time and again, according to the information that I have. The owners of the ship are wronged by Mr. D. W. Davis, and Mr. F. C. Wade is benefited by $750 of hard cash, actually wrung out of that company and put into the pockets of Mr. F. C. Wade. All that is disclosed by the papers.
He was trying to get more information in regard to this matter.
When these London capitalists seek the protection of the Canadian government against an officer of the Canadian government, whose action has been reported upon by the Department of Justice as high-handed and improper.
That is where he refers to the case. He is desiring to get more Information in regard to it, he has put his question on the paper, and they have refused to give him the information. He culls this from the report made by a government official to the Department of Justice, or through the Department of Justice, or through Mr. Ogilvie, in which he speaks of the action of Mr. Wade as high-handed and improper. This gentleman admits that he took $750 belonging to this English company, while at the same time he was advising the collector of customs what to do on the other hand. He was the adviser of the Crown as well as the adviser of the defendant in the case.


Mr. McCREARY.: i do not know the merits of this discussion or what took place here last year, but, as a gentleman's name has been brought up in this discussion, I would like to say a word or two in regard to the matter. I have known Mr. E. C. Wade as a practitioner in the city of Winnipeg since 1882. There are about eighty lawyers practising in the city of Winnipeg, and I do not think there is one in the city more honourable or straightforward than Mr. Wade. There are two brothers of the hon. member for Pictou (Sir Charles Hib-bert Tupper), as well as Mr. Hugh John Macdonald practising there, and I do not know that any of these gentlemen will say that in eighteen years one dishonourable act was ever brought before any of the Judges in regard to Mr. Wade's manner of carrying on practise. As far as I can hear this was not a matter before a judge but a matter of arbitration. I submit that before the name of a lawyer of the good standing of Mr. Wade is discussed in this way, he should at least have an opportunity of giving an explanation in .some manner to this House.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The hon. gentleman should know that Mr. Wade was called upon to give an explanation, and that he 84*
practically said : ' It is none of your business.' It is a well-known fact that when he was acting as adviser to the collector of customs he advised him to make the seizure of this vessel. The owners of the vessel go to him for advice, he advises them to make a deposit with the collector of customs, they do so, and when the collector of customs is asked for that deposit he says that he paid it over to Mr. Wade as his fee. To say that Mr. Wade enjoyed an honourable reputation in the city of Winnipeg may be all right enough ; there is no person calling that in question, but that has no reference to an act that he did in another capacity, or to the fact that an official of this government reported that his conduct was high-handed and improper. Surely one who was sent to look into it ought to know a great deal more about it than the hon. gentleman who deigns to enlighten the House as to the character of Mr. Wade. It would be more becoming if we had some information or defence from either the Minister of the Interior or the Solicitor General, than from an hon. member who knows nothing about it.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES. I.: do not think there is any defence required in regard to the matter. It was threshed out pretty well last session and the session before. The facts are, as 1 remember, that the vessel was seized in the Yukon by the collector of customs, because of a complaint made by the seamen that their wages had not been paid. The vessel was tied up to the wharf, and the owners contended the collector had no right to seize her. They laid a caveat against the seizure, and after some time an agreement was come to that the vessel should be allowed to proceed, the dispute to be referred to an arbitrator whose award should be accepted by both sides. The collector then released the vessel and a certain amount was paid by the owners into the hands of the collector to abide the result of the award. The collector handed over the money in pursuance of the award. After the award was made, the parties who represented the vessel attempted to revoke the submission, and the collector ignored their right to do so. That was the matter in controversy. The collector said he had released the vessel on their submission to arbitration, and that he would pay the money in pursuance of the award. Whether or not they had the technical legal right to revoke the submission I do not inquire, but on the justice of the case it did appear that the collector was justified in paying the money over. I speak with diffidence, because I only know the facts as they came out in the debate, but it seems to me that a mountain was made out of a molehill, and that so far as Mr. Wade is concerned he simply received the money from the collector for his services as counsel.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Counsel for whom ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: I do not know which side he was on.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: He was acting for the owners of the vessel, and he was acting for the government as well.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: The government had nothing to do with this matter. The sailors filed their proper complaint and got the vessel seized. The Merchants Shipping Act provides that certain proceedings are to be taken, and when the vessel was tied up, rightly or wrongly, an agreement was come to and signed by the parties that the dispute should be referred to arbitration. I shall not discuss the legal right of one of the parties to revoke the submission, but it did seem to me that whatever complaint might be against Mr. D. W. Davis the collector, there was no ground of complaint against Mr. Wade, unless you prove that his charges were excessive, and I have never heard that contended.


Robert Laird Borden: I do not know that this has much to do with the item, but since the minister (Hon. Sir Louis Davies) has entered into a discussion, I may say that I do not think that the matter is so clear as he would lead us to believe. If the collector of customs was allowed to act the parts of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, it was a very simple thing indeed. According to the views the hon. gentleman (Hon. Sir Louis Davies) put forward last year, at one moment he was collector of customs, and Mr. Wade was consulted by him as such; the next moment he was not acting as collector, but as arbitrator.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: I do not think he was the arbitrator.


Robert Laird Borden: Oh, yes, my recollection is that he was the arbitrator. At one moment he was collector of customs and an officer of the government, and the next moment he was arbitrator, and then as soon as the money came to him-according to the statement of the minister last year-he came back to Dr. Jeykll again, and was collector of customs. It was perfectly absurd that he could be doing his duty in all these different capacities and that Mr. Wade could be advising him in one capacity and then in another and the crew of the ship as well, and be doing his, duty to his clients. That was the argument of the Minister of Marine and Fisheries last session. I do not know sufficient of the facts to cast any reflection on Mr. Wade, but I do say that the matter was not explained to my satisfaction last year. I do not say that there is not a reasonable explanation of it, but I was not able to get any explanation last year to satisfy me, although the Minister Sir LOUIS DAVIES.
of Marine and Fisheries exerted to the utmost his well-known powers for the purpose of making it perfectly plain that there was no ground for criticism at all.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: I think the charge was against Davis and not against Wade.


Robert Laird Borden: The charge was against the collector of customs. The criticism that was made on the collector was that he went as such to Mr. Wade because Mr. WTade was the Crown prosecutor, or the solicitor recognized by the government as having a standing there; and then, when this matter was dealt with by that same collector of customs as an arbitrator, Mr. Wade appeared for one of the parties before him. That was the criticism upon Mr. Wade's position. . Whether there is any thing in it or not I do not know.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: I think that was it.


The SOLICITOR GENERAL.: Before you leave the estimates I would like to answer a question which was asked by the hon. member for Pictou (Sir Charles Hibbert Tupper) with reference to the residences of the Supreme Court judges of British Columbia. I have the information with me now, and perhaps I might as well read it so that the hon. member may see it in Hansard if he desires to look at it:
Chief Justice McColl : On his appointment as puisne judge the order in council stated : * and that the county of Westminster be assigned to him as the county in which he shall reside and usually discharge his duties.'
The commission on the above order in council is as follows :

' We do hereby assign to you, the said Angus John McColl, as such judge, the county of Westminster, in the said province of British Columbia, as the county within which you shall, during our pleasure, reside and usually discharge the duties of the said office of such judge.'
When Judge McColl was appointed chief justice of British Columbia, the order in council said :
* that the Victoria judicial district be assigned to the Honourable Angus John McColl as the district in which he shall reside and usually discharge his duties.'
Judge MeColl's commission as chief justice does not mention his place of residence.
Judge Walliem :
Order in council does not mention place of residence.
Commission says : ' and your residence within the said province of British Columbia.'
Mr. Justice Drake :
Order in council does not mention residence.
Commission says : ' hold office during good behaviour, and your residence within the said province of British Columbia.'
Mr. Justice Martin :
Order in council states : ' that the county of New Westminster be assigned to him as the county in which he shall reside and usually discharge his duties.'
No mention in commission of residence.

Mr. Justice Irving :
Order in council says : * that the county of Vancouver be assigned to him as the county in which he shall reside and usually discharge his duties,' and
Commission, ' and until otherwise ordered by our Governor General in Council, we do hereby assign you the county of Vancouver as the county within which you shall, from and after the date hereof, reside and usually discharge your duties as such judge.'


Robert Laird Borden: There is also a matter which the senior member for Pictou (Sir Charles Hibbert Tupper) mentioned to me before he left. It is with regard to an appeal from the high court of the Yukon territory. I understood from the Minister of the Interior that that appeal was to be confined to the Supreme Court of the province of British Columbia, and I want to know from the Minister of the Interior whether or not he has taken into consideration the advisability of having an appeal-either a further appeal or an alternative appeal-to the Supreme Court of Canada. Speaking without very much knowledge of the class of litigation which might be dealt with on such an appeal it would seem to me that 'the magnitude of some of the cases which probably would arise there would justify either an alternative appeal or a further appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada. A precedent can be found for that in the statute which deals with the admiralty jurisdiction of the Exchequer Court. From the local judge of the Exchequer Court sitting in admiralty an appeal may be taken either to the judge of the Exchequer Court at Ottawa, or to the Supreme Court of Canada; and if the appeal is taken in the first instance from the local judge to the judge of the Exchequer Court, then a further appeal may be taken from him to the Supreme Court of Canada. It seems to me that the Minister of the Interior may very well take into consideration as to whether some such scheme as that is not necessary in view of the magnitude of causes which probably arise in the Yukon territory. As to whether or not suitors in those courts should not have the benefit of an appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada, as suitors in other provinces have with respect to litigation involving very trifling amounts, I would be glad to have an expression of opinion from the hon. gentleman.


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: I did not catch the first remarks of my hon. friend, and I thought they applied to appeals in mining cases, but my hon. friend the Solicitor General says the leader of the opposition refers to appeals In ordinary civil cases.


Robert Laird Borden: I was referring to cases which were dealt with by the Minister of the Interior when he made a statement to the hon. member for Pictou
the other day in the House. I am not very familiar with the jurisdiction of the courts in the Yukon. I suppose there is an appeal in ordinary cases to the Supreme Court of Canada, is there not ?


The SOLICITOR GENERAL.: To the Supreme Court of British Columbia.


Robert Laird Borden: If there is not an appeal from the Yukon court to the Supreme Court of Canada at present, I would extend my remarks to that. I think the magnitude of many mining claims would justify a further appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada-at all events, an alternative appeal.


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: The jurisdiction which the Minister of the Interior has officially in regard to mining claims arose under the mining regulations, and has gone on for a considerable number of years. As I explained to the House in answer to the hon. member for Pictou, it has now been changed by constituting a court of appeal, consisting of the two judges of the court and the Gold Commissioner. We have not in any ordinance provided for an appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada. I fully recognize that there is a good deal to be said in favour of a further appeal. A doubt exists whether that could be given by ordinance, in all probability an Act of parliament would be required. That, of course, would not involve any difficulty if it were considered wise as a matter of policy to have such an appeal. The principal difficulty I had in my mind in connection with the question of an appeal arose from the consideration that in deciding appeal cases myself, I found the most serious difficulty in thoroughly understanding the references to the markings on the ground. Although there were in some eases three or four or half a dozen plans made by surveyors on the ground, and although I had for several years given special attention to the mining regulations, and bad discussed the conformation of the ground with surveyors and other people familiar with it, yet I had great difficulty in one or two cases in being certain that I understood, from references in the evidence and the decision of the Gold Commissioner, the conformation of the ground. Many cases that came before me practically turned upou some fact to understand which it was absolutely necessary that a judge should know the nature of the country, and something about the conformation of the ground. It is almost impossible to tell this from the words used by witnesses. For instance, as an illustration, I may mention that the question in one case was as to where the base of a hill was. Witnesses on one side said it was at a certain point, and they described the conformation of the ground- how quickly the ground rose at that point

and the growth of grass and timber there- and they got back to the question whether this rising ground had been there 100 years or 200 years. The evidence was of such a character that it was next to impossible to a person who had never seen the country to understand what the evidence meant. 1 felt, therefore, that for the present at least, it was very doubtful if it would add anything to the probability of a just decision of such cases to take them from a court composed of two judges who are necessarily brought into familiarity with the facts and circumstances, to judges who would be altogether new to the mining regulations and the questions of fact which they would have to decide. I am quite of my hon. friend's opinion, that if on consideration it would seem probable that a more accurate decision would follow from an appeal to a higher court, in some cases we ought to give an appeal, because the value of the property is very great; but, so far as I have been able to give the question any consideration up to the present time, I am inclined to the view that the judges of the appellant court down here would find a serious difficulty in disposing of these appeals. They certainly would have to give an enormous amount of time to the study of the conditions before they could feel that they were giving justice to the suitors.


Robert Laird Borden: Of course, where the question was simply one of fact, there would be no advantage in taking a case beyond the Supreme Court of British Columbia to the Supreme Court of Canada ; for the Supreme Court of Canada have laid down the rule that where two courts below have dealt with the question of fact in the same way, they will not interfere with the finding ; at least, I think that is the usual course pursued by that court. But, I have in mind one case which occurred in the province of Nova Scotia fifteen or sixteen years ago, in which the decision of the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia was reversed by the Privy Council with/ respect to the construction of the mining Act of that province, and on the result of that decision depended the ownership of half a million dollars worth of mining lands. In an important case of that kind, where a question of construction arose, it would seem to be right that there should be an appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada.
Consolidation of Dominion statutes, orders in council and proclamations having the force of law, notwithstanding anything in the Civil Service Act, $20,000.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: In what stage of advancement is the consolidation of the statutes ?


The SOLICITOR GENERAL.: There is absolutely nothing done.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Can the hon. gentleman give us any information as to when it is expected to have the statutes consolidated ?


The SOLICITOR GENERAL.: The intention is, when this vote goes through, to have an order in counil passed immediately, for the purpose of appointing commissioners.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Can the hon. gentleman give any information as to when they are likely to get through with the work ?


The SOLICITOR GENERAL.: The last revision was begun in 1881 and completed in 1887. We hope to do the work more expeditiously, because we intend to utilize the services of some of the permanent officials to help in the work of consolidation.


Matthew Henry Cochrane: Is the hon. gentleman going to have it done by the job or by the year ?


The SOLICITOR GENERAL.: We have not considered that point, but will be glad to consider any suggestions that my hon. friend may have to offer as to adopting one course or the other.


Robert Laird Borden: What is the significance of the expression * notwithstanding anything contained in the Civil Service Act ' here ?


The SOLICITOR GENERAL.: We intend to take advantage of the services of some permanent officials. There is no reason why the Deputy Minister of Justice should not be employed in important work of this kind. Other officials also should be able to render valuable assistance.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: While that may be well, it may lead to abuse. The officials are paid for their whole time, and if you propose to employ them outside of their regular duties and pay them extra, the minister is left free to employ his own friends and give them any amount he pleases.


The SOLICITOR GENERAL.: The intention is to select the most competent men. I do not wish to commit myself to anything 'when I say that we may not confine ourselves to the Department of Justice, but may ask the services of others, for instance, the law clerks of the Senate and the House of Commons. It is not expected that these gentlemen should work without additional remuneration. In the last revision, the deputy minister was paid a gratuity of $5,000 in addition to his salary of $4,000. I am not saying now what the intentions of the government are, because I do not know, but I think it proper to have the words, ' notwithstanding anything in the Civil Service Act,' so that if it is desired to utilize the services of permanent officials, that may be done.


Robert Laird Borden: Permanent officials, of course, are not supposed to work


Mr. SIFTON.: during all their waking hours. They must have a certain amount of leisure, and there is no reason that I can see why they should not do some work in connection with the revision of the statutes and receive some additional remuneration for their work.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES (Hon. Sir Louis Davies).: I understand my hon. friend (Mr. Borden, Halifax) to refer to the possible contingency of the officials in the Department of Justice being employed after hours, but he also indicated that they would be employed during their regular hours. Of course, they could not charge extra for work done during these hours. But, if some of them are employed by the Minister of Justice after hours, the insertion of these words would enable him to pay them for their services.


Robert Laird Borden: That is what I thought I was saying. Every one, except members of parliament, has certain leisure, and these officials might be employed during a part of that leisure, in doing work of this kind, and there is no reason that I can see why they should not expect remuneration for it.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I do not object to giving-reasonable remuneration. But what I pointed tout was the danger of abuse. The case mentioned by the Solicitor General is a case in point. It is supposed that $4,000 is a fair salary for the deputy minister. Yet we paid him $5,000 for his services besides, we make his salary equal to or above that of the premier. Will anybody say that that is not an abuse ? I do not care which government was responsible for it, such an action is not to be upheld. But this would give the minister power to pay some of his officers extra, whether the work is done during the regular working hours or during their spare time. Leaving the money in the hands of the department to use it as they see fit, will lead to pressure being brought to bear by these employees to get as much of it as possible, and I think that very often they get more than they are really entitled to.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: As I understand it, the hon. gentleman (Mr. Sproule) objects to leaving in the words ' notwithstanding anything in the Civil Service Act.' The Solicitor General said that no policy had been announced as to employing anybody. It may possibly be that the services of experts in the Justice Department may be required, and in order to make that possible, these words are put in.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I am not objecting, because, of course, the Civil Service Act provides that civil servants cannot get more than the amount voted for.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: That is what we supposed
the law to be, though the Supreme Court has held otherwise.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: That is what we regard as the law now. There ought to be some understanding that we are paying them fail-compensation for their working time and that we are not to pay them an exorbitant price for extra work that they do. I admit that they can be properly employed in this work and that they should get proper remuneration for what they do. But I do not think that we should give any man $4,000 salary and $5,000 extra for his services during the same year.


John Graham Haggart: I hope the Minister of Marine and Fisheries does not minimize the statement made by the Solicitor General. That hon. gentleman said, and I agree with him, that he was going to employ officers in his department and some officers out of other departments. He did not bind himself to the statement that he would not go outside of the department. But the Minister of Marine and Fisheries simply says that it is possible that some men in the Department of Justice may be employed.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: The hon. gentleman (Hon. Mr. Haggart) is in error. I made no statement at variance with that made by the Solicitor General. That hon. gentleman did not lay down a policy, but said that putting the vote in this form was to enable the government, if they thought fit, to employ officers of the Justice Department.


Robert Laird Borden: I would suggest that the experience of the gentlemen in the Department of Justice renders them particularly capable of doing work of this kind, and it would be a great pity if their services were not utilized in that way.
Dominion Lands-Chargeable to Income-Protection of timber lands In Manitoba and the North-west Territories and tree culture in the North-west Territories, $15,000.


Mr. WILSON.: This is a new item, is it not ?


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR (Hon. Clifford Sifton).: There was a vote of $10,000 last year.


Uriah Wilson: I understand that the department is going to appoint a commissioner for Manitoba and one for the North-west Territories, and, when persons want to plant tree-breaks, they may write to the commissioner, and the commissioner will go or send some person to view the place and tell the kind of trees that will grow best in that soil, and will also make a rough sketch to be sent to headquarters, where a working plan will be prepared for the planting of the trees. The commissioner or his assistants will have the oversight of the planting of the trees and will visit them from time to time to see that they are properly cared for.

If that is to be done in that vast country, you will need to have a whole host of officials to carry out the law. It does seem to me that it is altogether unnecessary. You might as well undertake to direct and superintend any other part of the work of the farm as to take control of this tree-planting. We had the commissioner (Mr. Stewart) before the Committee on Agriculture, and he explained his plan. He went on to make these statements to us, and I would like to have from the minister a statement of what he intends to do with reference to these matters.


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: I have for a number of years believed that one of the most important needs in Manitoba and the North-west Territories was a plan that would prevent the destruction of timber lands by fire, and coupled with that some means of educating the farmers in an intelligent system of tree planting. A portion of this vote is for the purpose of providing for the protection of forests upon Dominion lands from fire, and that is a large share of the work which is done under the direction of this branch of the department. Another jiortion of the work is that which has been described by my hon. friend who has just taken his seat, as a means of bringing about an intelligent system of tree planting. I am confident that the committee will not begrudge this sum if they believe it can be used effectively for those two purposes. We do not suggest that there should be a system which would extend its ramifications all over the territories, under which we would meet every demand that might be made in this direction for a number of years to come. All we intend to do is to get the work started, feeling confident that if it is fairly and Intelligently started, the people themselves will take up and carry it along. It is in a small way much like what the Minister of Agriculture under this government and the Minister of Agriculture under the late government have done in the way of encouraging the dairy industry in the west where, on account of the special circumstances, that industry could not have been successfully started without government assistance. The primary object of this branch of the department was to provide protection for forests upon Dominion lands, with regard to which there has been a great and deplorable loss by fire in former years: and secondly, to institute, if possible, and in an educative way, a system by which the farmers may know the best kind of trees to plant and how to take care of them. If the experiment is successful, and the farmers can be encouraged to go extensively into tree planting, the result will be worth to the country much more than this small sum of money. I may say that I know of my own personal knowledge that efforts have been made for some years past Mr. WILSON.
to inaugurate a system of tree planting. I know of individuals who have spent a great deal of money and labour, but to no purpose, in a great many cases, because their efforts were 111 directed. I have considerable hope that the result of the efforts that we are making wTill be to show them a more successful way, and that they will attain more substantial results.


Robert Laird Borden: How many years has the hon. gentleman been engaged in this scheme ?
The	MINISTER	OF	THE	INTERIOR.
We took an appropriation for a superintendent two years ago.
Mr.	WILSON.	I presume	in talking
about the superintendent, the hon. gentleman refers to Mr. Stewart ?
The	MINISTER	OF	THE	INTERIOR.
Yes.


Uriah Wilson: Do you Intend to appoint two more, one for Manitoba and one for the North-west Territories ?
The	MINISTER	OF	THE	INTERIOR.
We intend to appoint two assistants. We have appointed one gentleman already, but. not for any particular portion of the country, his name is Norman M. Ross. He is a gentleman who has made a special study of forestry. He took his course at the Guelph Agricultural College, was engaged for some time at the experimental farm at Indian Head, was subsequently in the employ of the Ontario government in forestry work, and then he went to North Carolina for the purpose of studying forestry under Dr. Schenk, who is one of the greatest authorities upon forestry. Subsequently he went to Europe where he spent a short time. It is my intention, if possible, to procure two forestry experts from Germany or Belgium.


James Clancy: The hon. gentleman has given the House what may appear to him as a reasonable explanation of this vote, but I venture to say that no sane man in Canada will say they are good reasons. He puts this scheme on a par with encouraging the dairy industry, why, they are as utterly dissimilar as two eases could be. One is a general interest, the other is an individual interest. The hon. gentleman proposes to construct, with the public funds of Canada, wind breaks for each individual who may call upon him. I admit there is great difficulty in that country in getting trees to grow; but does the hon. gentleman mean to say that men there are so devoid of sense that they do not know as well how to plant a tree as Mr. Ross does ? Why, any country boy knows that. The record he has given Mr. Ross is an astounding one. He has made too good a case for Mr. Ross, he is too well trained. He comes here with an outfit for Mr. Ross that

is utterly worthless. I would like to know what training he gets in the agricultural college at Guelph for forestry. Then he has been to South Carolina, and he has been to Europe. I venture to think that if the whole truth were told, Mr. Ross is a gentleman the lion. Minister of the Interior wants to take care of. Now in regard to Mr. Stewart, he never had any important duties to perform. Mr. Stewart appeared before the Agriculture Committee last year, and I am bound to say that he did not make a very creditable showing. He could not tell where the timber was upon the Crown lands that ought to be protected. All he was able to say was that there were considerable belts along the railways in British Columbia, where there was valuable timber. Whether that is so or not, does not materially concern the Dominion of Canada. The timber was upon the railway lands, and therefore the railway companies were interested jointly, if not solely, in that matter. Now what timber was there in the Northwest Territories and in that whole country that Mr. Stewart was able to say was of such vast importance that you should have fire wardens there to protect it ? It would be utterly impossible to man that country with a sufficient number of men to protect valuable timber if it already existed there. But in the first place it does not exist, so far as we have information; and I say Mr. Stewart was appointed to a place that was a mere sinecure. First of all, Mr. Stewart was appointed, and then the department set about to find duties for him. Now the hon. gentleman proposes to give him two new assistants, he is going to Germany to get experts to do what the common sense of every man in the country would suggest. I tell the hon. gentleman that he has not shown a shadow of justification for spending one copper for performing a service that belongs to each individual instead of to the public of Canada. So far as I am concerned I am going to take the sense of the House, if there are enough gentlemen to demand a vote with me. Where is this going to end ? Is the hon. gentleman going to make this a general service, or make it a special service for a few of his friends ? It is just as the member for Lennox (Mr. Wilson) said a moment ago. When a man wants a wind-break about his place, what does he do ? He sends down to the department at Ottawa to make a working plan to put out a few trees. Did any one ever hear of anything more ridiculous than that. And then the inspector is sent there to see whether the trees are well put out


Matthew Henry Cochrane: With a watering can.


James Clancy: With a watering can, my hon. friend (Mr. Cochrane) says. I have no doubt that will be quite as sensible as the other part of the scheme-and more successful, my hon. friend says. The hon. minister says that this is educational. Is he
going to educate the whole country by building a wind-break 1 Certainly not. The first thing that must be sought in that country is the class of tree that will grow there. I believe that this plan was suggested to the hon. gentleman by persons who are- anxious to fill positions. I think the hon. gentleman has been imposed upon.
I am going to give him credit for being sincere and honest enough to have believed in the proposal that has been made to him, but he is the victim of a fraud and a sham.


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: I am afraid I cannot accept unreservedly the statement of the hon. member for Both-well (Mr. Clancy), that this plan is a fraud and a sham, nor can I accept the reasons he has given as good reasons for his belief. In the first place, he says that we had to find a place for Mr. Stewart, and that having appointed him, we had to give him something to do. I want to tell the hon. gentleman that his assumption is entirely incorrect. I think I know more about the workings of that branch of my department, than the hon. gentleman does.


James Clancy: If the hon. gentleman does, he knows more about it than Mr. Stewart does.


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: There was no officer of the department to * give special attention to the question of protection against forest fires, which were a source of great embarrassment before that to the department.


James Clancy: Will the hon. gentleman state to the committee where the valuable timber is in the North-west Territories ?


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: I can give the hon. gentleman the information that we have a great deal of valuable timber. There is timber upon the Moose Mountain timber reserve, where the late government made a reserve, and where, I think, in doing so, they acted with the utmost wisdom. They expended money for the purpose of preserving that timber. Most of it is not timber of a character that is fit for building purposes. But, it is timber which supplies fuel for the population for many miles around, and it would be most disastrous if that timber were to be destroyed. In the Turtle Mountain district, and up in the northern portion of Manitoba, on the north slope of the Riding Mountains, and along the streams which flow north-westward, upon the lines of railway going through the Lake Dauphin country to Prince Albert, there are considerable belts of valuable timber. The same can be said practically of the country around Lake Winnipeg, and for many years the department has been reaping quite a considerable revenue from the timber which has been operated in the districts to which I have referred. In addition to that, upon

the mainland of the Canadian Pacific Kailway in British Columbia, there is a large amount of valuable timber.


James Clancy: The hon. gentleman knows that that is in the railway belt, and as for Manitoba, Mr. Stewart, X do not think, proposes to go there at all.


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: My hon. friend made a mistake when he was speaking before, and if he will refrain for a moment, I will explain it so that he will not make the same mistake again. The land in British Columbia, which is known as the railway belt, belongs to the Dominion government and is under our administration. A large amount of the timber comes under the administration of the department, and that is a place where a considerable amount of care is necessary for the purpose of protecting the timber from fire.


James Clancy: I would like to ask the hon. gentleman if that timber in the railway belt has not entered into the hands of private individuals ? Has it not been sold ?


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: The hon. gentleman asks a question which cannot be answered wholly by yes or no. By far the greater portion of the timbered land in the proportion of, I should say, fifty to one, is still in the hands of the government. There are scattered homesteads and settled tracts in that vast tract of land, but the land that has passed from the hands of the government, as far as the soil is concerned, is a mere trifle. A considerable portion of the land has been disposed of in so far as the timber is concerned, and is held upon the same terms as timber berths are always held when they are disposed of by the department. So that, the impression of the hon. gentleman that there is no large amount of timber to be protected in British Columbia, is a mistaken one. There is a vast amount of timber, and if the hon. gentleman looked into the matter and found that there were no steps being taken to protect the timber, he would be the first, and very properly so, to criticise the department for gross neglect of duty. The hon. gentleman says that giving some instructions in regard to tree planting is for the purpose of benefiting individuals. That is perfectly true. But, my hon. friend is too late in the day when he is objecting to expenditures of this class being made, because their special benefit is not distributed equally over the whole community. We have experimental farms established by the late government and continued by this government, and I know that they have done an enormous amount of good throughout the country. But, the results of the experiments are not certainly distributed equally throughout the whole community. The benefits which accrue are more largely derived by the people in the immediate neighbourhood of the farms than by the whole Mr. SIFTON.
community, but the information and knowledge which are acquired in the operations that take place upon these farms can be made available by the whole community, and so can the information which will accrue in the case of the operations which will be conducted in connection with the plan I have suggested in the committee. My hon. friend, and I do not blame him, because I know a great deal more about the inhabitants of the western country than he does, is quite mistaken in regard to the views the people there take of this matter. The meetings which have been held, and to which the farmers have come for the purpose of discussing this matter with the superintendent of forestry, have been attended by the most intelligent farmers in that country, who have taken a very active interest in the question, and -who have been enthusiastically loud in their praises of the department for taking up this plan. It is the most intelligent of the farmers who take an interest in it, because they feel that if it can be shown without too great an expense that the farmer can grow a considerable number of trees upon his farm, his success will be an object lesson to those around him, and the work will then go on itself. One of the main difficulties in regard to tree planting heretofore has been the getting of planting material of a satisfactory kind. In Manitoba and the North-west Territories, the farmers have attempted to plant what is known as the Dakota cottonwood, and it has been in some places a success. Some few other trees have also been tried, but there has been no systematic trial of other kind of trees, which might be available for fire-guards and wind-breaks on the ordinary prairie farm. I have no doubt that the hon. member for Bothwell is perfectly honest in his criticisms. I can assure him that there is no intention on my part of doing anything except to employ the most competent person to give this suggested plan a reasonable trial. I know from experience that in so far as we are expending this money for the purpose of protecting the forests, we are only doing that which the government has always done, and which it is urgently required we should devote a little more attention to. In so far as the question of tree planting is concerned, I am perfectly satisfied that we may fairly expect to see substantial results in a short time.


James Clancy: The hon. gentleman says that as an instance of the intelligence of the people in that county they have held meetings and that they were very enthusiastic over the plan. I quite agree with him that it is an evidence of the intelligence of the people that they can conceive that a work they ought to perform for themselves is being performed out of the public purse. I think there is no better evidence of their intelligence that they have the best

of it, and that they should be enthusiastic is not a thing to be wondered at. Let us come back to the protection of timber. Mr. Stewart stated that the principal part of the railway belt was in the hands of private persons who had licenses to cut, and that there was a system of protection in operation with regard to these limits long before this government came into power. It was not necessary to appoint an inspector to rove all over the country, because these lessees were willing to pay a portion of the cost of protecting the timber against fire. Mr. Stewart admitted that it would he impossible to utilize enough labour to protect the scattered timber except in a very general way. The country is very sparsely inhabited and the chances of fire are very remote indeed.
As to the tree planting, I believe that an expenditure of money for the purpose of discovering what kind of trees would grow in that country might be justified, but for the minister to propose that plans of windbreaks will be sent to Ottawa and all that kind of thing, simply means that he is seeking some excuse to pay out money for unnecessary services. Our country is fast losing its timber. It is marvellous how the province of Ontario has been denuded, and although tree planting and re-foresting is a live question there, no one would propose to take up public funds for that purpose. If the minister would devote his attention to try and find what trees will grow in the North-west. I would be prepared to justify an expenditure of money for that, but it is absurd for him to propose to appoint men to plant trees when he does not know whether these trees will grow or not. The minister tells me that he knows that country and the people better than I do. That may be, but there is a common-sense view of this question which is apparent to every sensible man, and the proposal of the minister is not a common-sense one. What the minister proposes is practically to devote public money to; construct wind-breaks for private individuals. I hope he will reconsider that proposal and proceed upon intelligent principles.


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: My hon. friend (Mr. Clancy) seems to take particular objection to that suggestion which provides for a plan of wind-breaks being sent to Ottawa. I may say that when I looked into the matter myself I thought it would be too cumbersome, but that is a mere detail and not a necessary feature of the scheme at all. I can tell the hon. gentleman (Mr. Clancy) that there have been experiments carried on at the Experimental Farm with regard to the class' of trees that would grow in the North-west Territories. To hand the materia! to the average prairie farmer would he simply waste. I cast no reflection on my constituents or on my friends in the North-west as regards their

industry or their capacity as farmers, but as a rule they have no experience in treeplanting. The great majority of them ^.re young men who have not heretofore made a success of their efforts in that direction, and it is because of this fact that the most intelligent farmers of the country have taken a great interest in this question, and have cordially approved of the proposal of the government. The main object is to furnish farmers with plant material, who are willing to take advantage of this proposition, and then we intend to see that the material is made proper use of so that we may have a few examples of success in the cultivation of trees, which in a short time will lead to general good results. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Clancy) is unduly pessimistic on the question of forestry, and he is not taking wise ground when he says that the public funds should not he used for this purpose. In some of the European countries public funds have been used in this way with marvellously beneficial results, and in a comparatively short space of time the whole face of one or two European countries has been changed by scientific forestry- If my hon. friend visits us in the North-west in a few years I am in hopes that I will be able to show him that the result of this expenditure has been beneficial.


Uriah Wilson: The position taken by the minister now, is entirely at variance with that taken by Mr. Stewart before the committee. Mr. Stewart laid great stress upon the men who will have charge of the construction of the wind-breaks in that country, and he told us they should be men who had lived there for years, and who are well acquainted with the climate and the kind of trees. that would grow in the different districts. He said that if any person applied, a man would he sent out to show him how to plant trees, and to tell him the kind of trees that would be adapted to the nature of the soil. The minister leaves the impression on the committee that this is only a start, as it were, while Mr. Stewart in his evidence laid it down that they would appoint one commissioner in the North-west and one in Manitoba, that these would be sufficient for the present, but that they would need to have assistants in the near future. If, on application to one of these commissioners, he is obliged to send out a man to each farmer to give instruction as to how to construct a windbreak, any one can understand that we would need to have a large number of officials. That is what I object to. I believe that the information gathered from the experimental farms, and the natural common-sense knowledge that a man who has lived in that country for a number of years should acquire, ought to be sufficient, without having to send out a government official to specially instruct him. Besides that, the

minister says that Mr. Ross has been down in North or South Carolina to study the tree business, and now he is going to Germany ; which is totally at variance with the statements made by Mr. Stewart to the committee. He laid great stress on the importance of gaining information from actual experience derived from living in the country. I hope the minister has no idea of appointing a whole army of officials to teach the farmers in that country how to plant trees on the prairies.


William Forsythe McCreary: This is a matter of so much importance to Manitoba and the Northwest Territories that instead of $15,000 being voted for this purpose, I think the sum should be much larger. The hon. gentleman who has just spoken should remember that whereas the older provinces possess their timber and public lands, the timber and public lands in Manitoba and the Territories belongs to the Dominion, The province of Ontario has spent a large amount of money not only in preserving its timber, but in reforesting.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Not one cent.


William Forsythe McCreary: The province of Ontario has spent a large amount of money for this purpose ; I heard of it being discussed the other day in the local House. How many forest rangers are there in Ontario to-day?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: An army of them.


William Forsythe McCreary: Yes, and if they had been appointed years ago, the state of affairs mentioned by the hon. member for Russell (Mr. Edwards) the other day, that the province was almost denuded of timber, would not now exist. If the hon. gentlemen who sat in this House in 1882 and 1883 had taken the precautions to protect the timber about the Pembina Mountains, the farmers of that district would not be in the position they are in to-day, of having to haul coal from Roche Percee or Estevan, and pay $4.75 a ton for it. The amount of money received by the Dominion for stump-age on ties, saw-logs, for cord-wood, and things of that sort must be very large indeed-more than sufficient to pay the $15,000 mentioned here. The county which I have the honour to represent has, I believe, the largest quantities of timber of any county in the province. There are large quantities of spruce west of Lake Winnipeg, and north of the line of the Canadian Pacific Railway from East Selkirk to the eastern boundary of the province, and it is of the utmost importance that that timber should be protected. In fact, the city of Winnipeg derives its chief timber supply from that region. In the neighbourhood of the Riding Mountains, the Porcupine Hills, and Duck Hills, there are large quantities of timber, and if some precautions are not taken that timber will be destroyed, as the settlers going in set fire to the scrub for the purpose of clearing their land. If we had fire-Mr. WILSON.
breaks sixty-six or ninety-nine feet wide all around these mountains, liept ploughed and harrowed, so that the weeds would be kept down, and if fire did occur, the timber would be protected. With regard to tree-planting, that is a subject I know something about. In the city of Winnipeg eighteen or twenty years ago the people found great difficulty in getting trees to grow. Many men spent hundreds of dollars in the attempt. We tried to start parks in the city, but we did not succeed ; very few understood the nature of the soil and the most suitable trees. But a few years ago we appointed a park commissioner and to-day the city of Winnipeg has as fine parks as the city of Ottawa. At first the tree-planting was not a success ; but to-day we have fifteen or twenty miles of streets as well planted with trees as any streets in the city of Ottawa. That was not done until we had appointed a man who thoroughly understood the subject. We have fifteen or twenty parks in the city, some two acres in extent and others very large.


James Clancy: Was it Mr. Ross who made that discovery.


William Forsythe McCreary: No, Mr. D. D. England, a gentleman from the old country, who was a gardener there, and who studied the question in this country. I have no knowledge at all of Mr. Ross, the gentleman spoken of ; but I submit that it is of the utmost importance to Manitoba and the North-west-Territories that this sum, and even a much larger sum, should be spent in the protection of timber and the encouragement of treeplanting.


James Clancy: Will the hon. gentleman say what kind of tree was successful In Winnipeg ?


William Forsythe McCreary: Those planted on Broadway are elms. The first trees planted were the Red river maple, which in appearance is between the ash and the soft maple ; but fit was not a success. Where the soil is deep and heavy we have taken sand from Point Douglas and mixed it with the black soil, and where this was done not over 12 per cent of the trees on Broadway failed. It will take some time to study this question, and I think the minister might have gone even further than he has. I submit that the farmers themselves might do something in the way of tree-planting under proper instructions. The country along the line of the Canadian Pacific Railway west from Moosejaw, is all barren of trees except the Moose Mountain, and the timber there is all small timber. When a man wants trees planted, the homestead entry, instead of being $10, might be increased to $20 or $25. Many men would gladly pay from $50 to $100 for a homestead with trees planted on it. This matter is one of great importance, and in view of the fact that the province of Manitoba and the Territories are

not the possessors of their own timber, it becomes the duty of this government to protect what they need as much as light and air, that is, timber for fuel.


Uriah Wilson: Might I ask the hon. gentleman if he thinks it necessary to send a special man to every farmer to give him instructions how to plant a wind-break ?


William Forsythe McCreary: I do not think that necessary at all ; but if an instructor went and explained to two or three farmers in a municipality, how it should be done, the balance would learn from them.


James Clancy: I think the hon. gentleman who has just spoken has done great service. He has completely answered the Minister of the Interior. He has candidly told the House that there is no difficulty in growing certain kinds of trees, for it has been done in the city of Winnipeg. All you have to do is to plant elms, and you will have plenty of growth in the country.


William Forsythe McCreary: The hon. gentleman misunderstands me. What will suit the city of Winnipeg may not suit the Pembina Mountains, where the soil is entirely different.


James Clancy: The hon. gentleman has not helped his case. If he had said that the trees that grew in Winnipeg would not grow elsewhere, he might have a case ; but his argument was the opposite of that. After the speech the hon. gentleman has made, the Minister of the Interior is without any excuse. All he need do is to furnish the kind of tree plants suitable to a locality, and let the people plant the trees for themselves. The hon, gentleman scouts the idea of the people being able to do this. It is a slander on the intelligence of these people, many of whom come from the older provinces, to say that they know nothing about tree-planting. I dare say the Minister of the Interior has brought a class of people to the country, who live by camp fires, and who might require assistance in tree-planting, as well as assistance to keep body and soul together in many cases. But I venture the statement that three-fourths of the people, in fact, every man in Manitoba and the Territories who is worth having there, knows how to plant a tree, because he is guided by common sense, and has had experience in the older provinces, and is acquainted with a great many of the varieties of timber that obtain in the provinces of Ontario and Quebec. All these people would require would be to be furnished with the kind of tree plants suitable to their locality. It may be perfectly true that a class of timber that will grow in Winnipeg would not grow elsewhere ; but the business of the government could not reasonably go beyond assisting and furnishing tree plants that are suitable to a locality. This is a service that belongs to individuals and should not be paid for out of the public
purse. I still believe that the hon. gentleman has completely answered the Minister of the Interior, and I would ask the hon. gentleman to answer the hon. gentleman who has spoken on his own side.


Mr. DAVIS.: I fancy the hon. gentleman from Bothwell (Mr. Clancy) has not travelled much in Manitoba and the North-west Territories. It is a very large country. As has just been remarked, though certain classes of trees may grow well in the city of Winnipeg, it does not follow that they will grow in every part of Manitoba and Territories. There are large parts of the Territories in which the people have not yet learned what trees grow to best advantage. As to protecting the timber, that ought to have been done years ago. I have been in the part of the country where I now live for the past twenty years, and I know that there have been immense quantities of timber destroyed by fire. And this occurs not merely where there is settlement, though the hon. member for Bothwell suggested that where there was no settlers there was no danger of fire.


James Clancy: I said it was remote.


Thomas Osborne Davis: A certain amount of this timber may belong to private parties, for I think about 15,000,000 acres of it was given away while hon. gentlemen opposite occupied the Treasury benches. Still, I can inform the hon. gentleman that there is a great deal of good timber belonging to the people of this country. The people in the older provinces own the timber lands within the limits of those provinces; but, the forest lands of the North-west are owned by the people of the Dominion as a whole. And, it is time that something was done to protect the timber there. In my own experience, there is township after township -yes, hundreds of them-where heavy timber grew ten or fifteen years ago and where there is now nothing but blackened stumps.


James Clancy: That is an important statement, but it is a contradiction of the statement made by Mr. Stewart to the committee. If Mr. Stewart, an official of the government, has made a statement contrary to that of the hon. gentleman (Mr. Davis) who says he knows the facts, that fact is important.


Thomas Osborne Davis: I was not at the meeting of the committee, and so do not know what Mr. Stewart said. I am merely telling the hon. gentleman that I know places in the Northwest Territories where, a few years ago, there were large forests and now there is nothing but prairie with some blackened stumps. That forest was very valuable, and if it had been protected it would have been there yet. One case that I recall is along the line of the Canada Northern Railway. There were immense forests there. I was through them twenty years ago. Two or three years ago I had occasion to go out

to tlie same place, and found nothing but prairie with a few back sticks. Not only is that timber valuable in itself, but it is particularly valuable as bringing us immigration, because the presence of timber there is very important. Young timber is springing up in those places, and it grows very rapidly. Take the poplar of the North-west Territories and Manitoba, and it does not take more than ten years to grow trees that are fit for rails. There are many instances in the North-west Territories of forests being destroyed by fire.


James Clancy: I desire to ask the hon. gentleman a question for information. If this country reforests so readily as he states, is it not an easy thing to replant these wind-breaks for farmers without government assistance ?
_ Mr. DAVIS. The hon. gentleman is talking as though he supposed the North-west Territories to be the same in every part. I am speaking of places where there have been trees. But there are millions of acres where there are no trees, but where, I feel prefectly sure, trees can be grown. But the people do not know what kind of trees will grow best. If the hon. gentleman will visit the Indian Head farm, he will see what trees are being grown there. But the trees in use so far do not last. An insect attacks them and kills them. If we could find a tree that would grow and last, we could turn that prairie almost into a garden. Wind-breaks are of the utmost value and enable grain to be grown where otherwise it could not be grown.


Robert Laird Borden: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Davis) mentioned that there are large forests there. What kind of trees are they chiefly ?


Thomas Osborne Davis: There is a class of white poplar, some of which grow very large. There is also spruce and what is known as the jack pine or cypress pine and others.


Robert Laird Borden: How large an area would these townships of which the hon. gentleman speaks-I do not suppose they are all in one block ?


Thomas Osborne Davis: I suppose they would cover five or six hundred miles. My own district,
I suppose the hon. gentleman knows, is seven hundred miles long. On the north side it was heavily timbered, but a great deal of that timber was destroyed by fires. There is young timber growing up and we feel that it should be protected, because it will make valuabe timber in a few years. Take, for instance, the country from Prince Albert to Green Lake, and there are miles and miles of valuable timber destroyed in the last few years by forest fires, that, with a proper system, might have been saved.


Robert Laird Borden: What would the hon. gentleman suggest as the best mode of protection ?


Thomas Osborne Davis: 


Thomas Osborne Davis: Where there is timber, men should be appointed as fire guardians. I suppose it would not be necessary to pay them very high wages. They should travel about and see that parties going into the woods carefully put out any fires they make, or if not, to prosecute such parties.


Robert Laird Borden: A prairie fire may start from any of a hundred different reasons. When it gets a start, is there any protection you can place around the forest in this way to protect the forest ? I am asking for information.


Thomas Osborne Davis: My hon. friend (Mr. McCreary) pointed out how, by ploughing and keeping the weeds from growing up you can make a perfect protection. At the same time, we should have fire guardians whose business it is at certain seasons-I suppose it would not be necessary to pay them all the year round-say, after the harvest when the grass commences to get dry, to be out all the time to see to it that fires are put out.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Would it be possible to make a system of fire guards without a great deal of expense ?


Thomas Osborne Davis: Yes. It is not expensive. Two or three scrapes of a plough, then leave ten or twelve feet, then two or three more scrapes of the plough, and burn the grass between-that will make a protection.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: But would that be of use in the case of a forest fire ?


Thomas Osborne Davis: I was referring to little groves such as I supposed my hon. friend the leader of the opposition (Mr. Borden, Halifax) was speaking of. For large tracts of valuable timber, we should have fire guardians with duties as I have suggested.


William Forsythe McCreary: Frequently a prairie fire can be seen twenty miles off. If a prairie fire was observed that endangered timber, I take it, it would be the duty of fire guardians to go out and burn a piece one or two hundred yards wide, so that the fire could not cross and get at the timber. He would take men with him with wet bags to prevent the fire he made from spreading beyond the desired limit.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Does the hon. gentleman think that that is possible as a practical means of protection, in such a wide area ?


William Forsythe McCreary: I may mention that on one occasion when I was at a station forty-six miles south of Edmonton, a mounted policeman named Kitchen-there is only one stationed there-looked across the prairie and saw something and said to another party : Is not that smoke ? He went and got his glass, and said it was smoke, and within three minutes that man was on his horse, with his blankets and saddle, and started off for that fire. I afterwards inquired how he got along, and

found that although the fire was nearly seven miles away, he went there and got the neighbours out and they crushed it. A great portion of the duty of the mounted police is in stopping fires.


Uriah Wilson: Does the minister intend to take the suggestion of the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. McCreary) and make experiments in certain localities, or does he intend to send a man to every person that applies to him for wind breaks ?


Frederick Debartzch Monk: It appears that it is a very difficult matter to prevent fires in the Northwest. I understood the aim of this vote was to give instructions to farmers how to plant trees for their own protection. If that is the case, I do not see why an exception should he made in favour of the farmers of the North-west. There is quite as much need of forestry work in the other provinces. There is no money spent in this direction in the province of Quebec, and I think we have as good a claim as the North-west.


Thomas Osborne Davis: There is a vast difference between Manitoba and the North-western territories and the older provinces. That is a prairie country, and it is to the common interest of the whole Dominion that tree planting should be encouraged there. This is not a sectional question at all. That country has got past the experimental stage, and I think the $15,000 spent in instructing the people to plant trees on the prairie will be spent in the right direction, for it will make the country more valuable and more attractive to settlers. My hon. friend has mentioned the usefulness of the mounted police in putting out fires. But there are many portions of the North-west where there are no mounted police and which require to be protected.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I did not speak from a sectional standpoint, but it seemed to me to be an exceptional vote. Is it not possible that in the North-west, at the present stage of advancement, that people know what trees they ought to plant ? If they know what kind of trees to plant, why should we spend money to promote forestry in that section of the country more than in any other ?


Thomas Osborne Davis: I have said that there was a certain class of trees that the people thought was the proper kind for that country some years ago, but which turned out to be a failure.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Does the hon. gentleman not think it would be better to send them the trees and let the people plant them themselves ?


Thomas Osborne Davis: You would require to consider the climate, the soil and all that sort of thing. You might get trees from the experimental farm, and not one in a hundred of them would grow.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I remember years ago the director of the experimental farm told us they were carrying on experiments at Brandon, and at the experimental farms at Indian Head, and at Agassiz, to ascertain what kind of trees were best suitable for that country, and that they had acquired a great deal of useful information in that respect. Now whatever work was done then, the people could take advantage of in the several localities. He spoke also of the cultivation of different kinds of trees in different localities. All that was in the proper direction. But this vote, if it is to be of any use, it seems to me, should be much larger than it is. The object is the protection of timber lands in Manitoba and the Territories, and tree culture of the Northwest Territories. Now' from the information the member for Selkirk has given us, it seems it would require a whole army of fire rangers to keep down these fires. We know that once the fire is started on the prairie, especially if there is any wind, it extends very rapidly. I have seen a belt of fire extending fifteen, twenty or thirty miles in the night. What an immense number of men it would require to put out these fires. Many years ago when Prof. Macoun was before the Agriculture Committee he was asked the question why that country was a prairie country, and not covered with trees. He said it was because extensive fires ran over it almost every year, started by Indians, or half-breeds, or travellers. He was asked if it was possible to prevent these fires from starting, and he answered that it could only be done by employing an army of men. I can imagine that $15,000 will not go far in that direction. But the hon. member for Selkirk reminds us that we have a lot of men in Ontario engaged as fire rangers and timber inspectors, looking after the replanting of forests. I am not aware that there is any replanting going on in Ontario. I can tell him that these are a very valuable class of men to the Ontario government. One of the most important services they render to the government is in connection with the by-elections. They are always available then, always ready to serve their masters from time to time. The fire rangers, timber inspectors and that class of men are very plentiful. Mr. D. F. MacDonald, who has been well known for the last twenty-five years in Ontario, was so actively interested in the preservation of the forests that whenever there was an election he always came to the front. When there was an election in Algoma he went out and corralled the Indians and squaws in one house, he took the Indians out to vote for the government candidate, then took them back into the house, made them undress, and made the squaws put on the pants and coats and go and vote. And so he kept it up all day, and then boasted afterwards that he had put between sixty and seventy-five votes in for his candidate and got him elected. No
2G87

doubt be was a very valuable man, and no doubt the present government, especially the Minister of the Interior, very much desires a class of officers of that character under his control. They would be very valuable in carrying on elections. Cap Sullivan is another. I might mention a number of them, because I have been acquainted with their work. They are always available, always on hand whenever there is an election going on. They are more ardent in the discharge of their duties at that time than during any other time of the year. I notice that the present government are closely following the course pursued by their friends in Ontario, that is, they are constantly manufacturing offices for their friends and filling them. They are getting any army of men pensioned on the country, and it requires a large share of the consolidated revenue to pay these pensioners. The government appear anxious to multiply offices in which they can put their friends. Every man who is a defeated candidate, who has been an active election agent, they try to reward by giving him an office, and as offices are becoming scarce they are trying to create new. ones. Now it would be possible effectually to control these fires, but I do not believe that can be done without a large army of men. The hon. member for Selkirk will admit that they have men already engaged in the North-west, some paid by salary and some by commission. The expenditure is creeping up all the time, but the results do not compare with the expenditure. I think the expenditure of money is out of all proportion to the benefit that accrues from it. I would be very far from discouraging a reasonable effort to ascertain what trees would be suitable for planting in that country. But, I think that the men who have lived in that country for years ought to know more about that than men coming from other countries that have entirely dissimilar conditions. I do not think that the appointment of a large army of men will ever be for the benefit of the country or even for the benefit of the men who are appointed. It will create a great army of pensioners in that country.


Thomas Osborne Davis: Surely the hon. gentleman (Mr. Sproule) does not believe that a great army of pensioners is going to be appointed with a vote of $15,000. He says this grant is too small, and I think it is too small.
I know the picture the hon. gentleman has drawn of the officials in Ontario, but he must not think that the people of the Northwest Territories are exactly the same as he represents them. The people of the Northwest Territories, from a political standpoint, do not need forest rangers to be placed there at the present time. We have all the majorities we want without the appointment of forest rangers or anything of that kind. In reference to the value of the men who are appointed for the express purpose of put-


Thomas Simpson Sproule: ting this- plan into force, the hon. gentleman says that if a prairie fire started these men cannot do anything to stamp it out. If you have a forest ranger and he sees smoke five or six miles away, if he starts off when he sees the smoke, he can put the fire out, and in this way he would save probably more than it would cost to pay his salary for ten years. I do not think we require a vast army of politicians for that purpose, and a vast army could not be appointed with a vote of $15,000. I think the vote is too small. The hon. gentleman says that the farmers of the west are sufficiently intelligent to take this work upon themselves, but I would remind him that the men who have been in that country for years most heartily approve of this proposal of the hon. minister. They think it is a step in the right direction.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I have never yet seen any one who would refuse to accept an expenditure of money in his own locality. What I was drawing attention to was the description given by the hon. member for Saskatchewan (Mr. Davis), and the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. McCreary), of the vastness of the country in which this work is to be done. I say that to make it effective it would require a large army, and this sum would not be anything like equivalent to the necessities, if you are to do effective work. This is only the commencement of it, and it will be enlarged very rapidly in the future, just as the need occurs for places for disappointed politicians. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Davis) says that the scheme would be most valuable for putting out prairie fires, and that a ranger would be able to put out a fire if he saw it fifteen or twenty miles away. Does he imagine that during the time he would be travelling fifteen or twenty miles the fire would remain in the same locality ? A prairie fire will sometimes travel as fast as a horse.


Thomas Osborne Davis: The hon. gentleman is alluding to prairie fires ; there are bush fires that could be put out.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: They all commence on the same principle as prairie fires. They lead from the prairie to the bush. I remember very distinctly seeing a prairie fire. We saw it in the evening, and the next morning, when I saw it, it appeared to me to be twenty miles off, but in half an hour we had reached the edge of it, because it had travelled very much faster towards us than we had travelled towards it. People in that country are obliged very often to start a fire whei'e they are to burn the prairie around them, and thus save themselves. Farmers there have had experience when whole districts of the country have been burned over. Notwithstanding the fact that the country is thickly settled, and that they get their teams out and

plough their fields for fire breaks, the fires jump over the ridges, and their crops and barns are burned. This shows how helpless a man would be in the ease of a fire spreading like that. When a neighbourhood that is moderately thickly settled cannot stop a fire or keep it under control in a locality, it shows that a very large army of men would be required to do anything like effective work in a country like that.


Aaron Abel Wright: I am more than astonished that there is an intelligent man standing on the floor of this House and saying for one moment that any ordinary farmer thoroughly understands the planting of trees. Now, I would like to see the farmer who knows how to plant trees. There is as large an amount of experience required to plant trees properly as there is in doing any other work, but, after you have learned how to plant out trees, you want to know the trees to plant. I defy any man who has not had a good deal of experience to go into the forest, pick out trees, to plant them on the roadside and have them on the roadside and have them live. That is a thing you do not understand, and it is a thing that you should find out. What we want is to thoroughly understand the kind of trees that are suitable, and then we want to instruct the farmers how to plant them. Let a man under ordinary circumstances go into the woods and take out evergreen trees, and see what kind of work he will make of it. He simply cannot do it. Take some kinds of evergreen trees, and if the roots are planted on a dry or windy day no man can make them live. There is so much resinous matter in the roots of these trees, that unless they are planted on a wet day you cannot make a success of them at all. In reference to the fire rangers, we have Are rangers in my riding of South Renfrew. We have men that we hire to go and put out the fires, and they put them out successfully. They have voted against me as well as for me, and they are not Indians or squaws clothed in men's pants. They are white men, they are intelligent, and they know how to put out fire. Some of them belong to the Conservative ranks. It does not make any difference whether a man is a Conservative or a Reformer. If he knows how to put out fires, that is the kind of a man we want. The Ontario government assists in that work, they pay these men because they know how the work of extinguishing fires can be done. I think that the matter of $15,000 to assist men to plant trees in the North-west Territories is too small, and it is a wonder to me that the department did not make it $50,000 instead of $15,000.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Wright) pretends to say that it requires an expert knowledge to do this work, and that no farmer understands it. What expert knowledge had Mr. Stewart in that line, who is placed over the whole body of them ?
He was only an ordinary surveyor, taken off the farm, and ordinary enough at that. That is all the expert knowledge he has. and yet he is sent out to instruct the farmers.


Aaron Abel Wright: I was not talking about the farmers ; I was talking about planting trees.


James Clancy: I should judge that the hon. gentleman (Mr. Wright) has no farmers in his locality. I am sure that the farmers in his county must be gratified at the certificate of character that the hon. gentleman has given them this evening. He has stamped them with the indelible stamp of stupidity. They know nothing. I did not know that the farmers were any more ordinary than the merchants. I thought they were usually a class of people who were equal in intelligence to any other class. I think their business in life has led them more particularly to the planting of trees than has that of the merchant class. I do not know whether the hon. gentleman is an expert tree planter himself or not ; he did not say so, but he has hinted at it. I repudiate the slander placed upon the farmers of this country, that they do not know how to plant trees. There are people who say that the farmers do not know enough to come in out of the rain. But, I tell the hon. gentleman that if there is any class of the community that knows anything about tree planting it is the farmers. There is scarcely a farmer who has not had the ambition, the thrift and the good taste to put trees about his place, notwithstanding that he has a forest surrounding it.


An hon. MEMBER.: How many does he plant for one that grows ?


James Clancy: The farmers put out their trees in the fall. I tell the hon. gentleman who takes exception to that that he does not know anything about tree planting. He should go to the persons who put out trees regularly every fall. Trees are put out in the fall for the simple reason that no growth takes place then. If the earth stays around the roots of the trees and it retains its mois-, ture, the chances are ninety-nine to one that the trees will grow. The hon. gentleman said he had nothing to say about Mr. Stewart, and to that extent he repudiated Mr. Stewart's qualifications. I know Mr. Stewart from a hoy. He is a gentleman of great respectability ; he belongs to a good family. There is nothing to be said against Mr. Stewart personally only what is very much to his credit, and it would be a cowardly thing to say anything against Mr. Stewart in a place where he could not defend himself. But Mr. Stewart was a provincial land surveyor, and while he is a gentleman of great respectability, I do not suppose he ever planted half a dozen trees in his life, if he ever planted one. He left his home on the farm when he was a small boy and



therefore had not any experience in that direction. Mr. Stewart is possessed of common sense like other people, but he has no more common sense or experience than other people in tree planting. Surely, farmers who are brought up on the farm, although their experience in tree planting be limited, ought at least have as much knowledge as other individuals in this direction.


Aaron Abel Wright: I do not for a moment think that It is an accusation against any farmer to say that he does not understand the planting of trees, any more than it would be to say that he cannot make a wagon wheel, although he uses wagons every day in the year. It is ridiculous for the hon. member (Mr. Clancy) to say that a man can plant trees in this section of the country in the fall, and expect them to grow. I have had some experience in this matter and I can tell the hon. gentleman (Mr. Clancy) that any man who would undertake to plant trees in the fall and make a success of the business, would deserve a leather medal from the hon. gentleman. There is just as much skill required in planting trees as there is in growing a good crop of wheat, and it is not every man who knows anything about that. Some of the settlers in the North-west come from all parts of the world. They often come from large cities, where they perhaps never as much as even saw a tree, and you might as well expect the wives of these men to make good butter as to expect that the men themselves can successfully plant trees. That branch of farming requires more skill than a man who has never had anything to do with it thinks. A great many people think that all they have to do is to dig a hole and put a tree in it, and stamp the earth around it, and that the tree will grow. That is not the case by any means. It wants a good deal of experience to make a successful tree planter, and a man. should almost serve his apprenticeship to it. You want to know what kind of tree you are going to plant, and whether or not it will thrive in that particular soil, and in that locality. Many a tree that will grow in the woods will not grow in the open. As to Mr. Stewart, I have no doubt that he is a good and amiable man, and if lie comes from the same section of the country as the hon. gentleman (Mr. Clancy), why should he not be amiable and intelligent, and know a good deal about planting trees, the .same as the hon. gentleman himself does.


Thomas Osborne Davis: Would the hon. gentleman (Mr. Clancy) inform us why the experimental farms were started. The Conservative government get credit for starting the experimental farms, and it certainly is no reflection upon the farmers of Canada that these experimental farms were inaugurated. Neither is it a reflection on the farmers that this government has undertaken to find out Mr. CLANCY.
what kind of trees would be suitable for certain portions of the country.


James Clancy: I can tell the hon. gentleman (Mr. Davis) the object of starting the experimental farms. One object of the experimental farm in the North-west was to do the very work which the minister now proposes to put his hand in the public purse for. Why not leave that business to the experimental farm. It is no reflection on the farmers of Canada that experimental farms were started, but I can tell the hon. gentleman that the the young men who have studied at the experimental farms have never been able to carry their teaching into practical effect when they went to work on their own farms.
I defy any one to point to half a dozen men who attended the Ontario Agricultural College who have followed out the methods they were taught there when they cultivated their own farms. In that respect it has been a dismal failure. The conditions of the land in different localities vary so much that it is impossible to lay down any general scientific principle which can govern. There are [DOT] two or three principles which the common sense farmer has at his command which are applicable all over, and the best farmers in the country are those who mastered these principles without ever seeing an agricultural college. I admit the value of the agricultural college for the purpose of testing seeds and so on, but for the purpose of training men to farm, it has been a dismal failure in the greatest province of the whole Dominion, notwithstanding that there have been hundreds of thousands of dollars expended on it. I repeat that the best farmers we have in Canada are not the young men. who went to the Agricultural College, but they are the men who mastered the conditions of their own farms and who by their industry and sturdy common sense were able to make their way without knowing anything of any real or affected science about farming.


Mr. ROCHE (Marquette).: How many forest rangers has the minister in his employ in the province of Manitoba, and what are their duties ?


The MINISTER OP THE INTERIOR.: I think I gave the hon. gentleman (Mr. Roche, Marquette) the answer to that on a former occasion. The homestead inspectors are required to act as forest rangers whenever they are instructed by the Crown timber agent. The head timber inspector at Winnipeg is authorized to instruct the homestead inspectors in their duties as forest rangers. In addition to the homestead inspectors, there is a forest ranger, Mr. Trudel, having his headquarters at Regina ; one at Edmonton and one at Turtle Mountain. The plan which it is proposed to work out under this vote is that the homestead inspectors or the forest rangers, as the case may be, will

be instructed at a particular season of the year to employ such men as they think necessary for thirty or forty days temporarily. These men have printed instructions in the form of a book, and they have printed forms containing the clauses of the law which provide penalties for starting fires and that sort of thing, and they post these notices and warn the people of the district. Last year we did not require to employ any, because just at the dangerous season of the year, which lasts about six weeks, very heavy rains came on and it was not necessary to make appointments, so that the money voted for that purpose was saved. Under ordinary circumstances a very great deal of work can be done for three or four thousand dollars, at $3 a day, for the men and the conveyance, and when these men are only employed temporarily. The intention in regard to the whole plan is that we have a superintendent and an assistant superintendent, who has given special attention to forestry, and we expect to employ in the west a couple of supervisors who are thoroughly familiar with, and will be specialists in that class of work. I shall not discuss at length the points raised by my hon. friend (Mr. Clancy), because I do not think that I need take seriously a great many things that he said. Most of his protests were directed against work which has been done by the Department of the Interior since it was instituted, namely, the taking of reasonable precautions against the destruction of timber, and that work must always be done by any department of government having timber lands under its charge. The argument of the hon. gentleman (Mr. Clancy) would go against doing anything at all. So far as this particular vote is concerned, it is simply an enlargement to the extent of two or three thousand dollars of a vote which has heretofore been always paid out of the Dominion lands appropriation.


William James Roche: Does the minister intend to utilize the present forest rangers for this work. He has only told us of three forest rangers who are homestead inspectors in the Territories. He has told us that he has some forest rangers in Manitoba who are not homestead inspectors.
The	MINISTER	OF	THE	INTERIOR.
My deputy says there are two.


William James Roche: Are their services going to be utilized for this work ?
The	MINISTER	OF	THE	INTERIOR.
They are at work the whole time.


William James Roche: At the present time are they supposed to	devote their
whole time to the duties of their office ?
The	MINISTER	OF	THE	INTERIOR.
Certainly.


William James Roche: Then how is it that one is a member of the local legislature ?


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: There is no permanent officer a member of the local legislature.


William James Roche: Is not Mr. Jerome in the employ of the government as forest ranger ?


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: I am told that the gentleman to whom my hon. friend refers was formerly a member of the civil service, but he resigned his position when he became a candidate for the local legislature. He has been employed temporarily, but he is not a permanent officer of the department.


William James Roche: What salary does he get now, and what did he get before ?


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: He does not get any salary now.


William James Roche: What amount of money per annum does he draw from the public treasury 1


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: When temporarily employed at special work he gets $4 a day.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I understand the minister to say that out of this vote of $15,000 there are employed for about forty days every year the several inspectors of homesteads on account of the danger of fire ?


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: No. What I meant to say was that the homestead inspectors are salaried officers paid out of another vote; but they are employed by the Crown timber agent for the purpose of protecting the forests from fire when so instructed. Then it is intended to employ some farmers in the neighbourhood for a short time.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Are both of these parties to be paid out of this $15,000 ? The minister mentioned that a permanent instructor with two assistants would be employed. Do their salaries come out of the $15,000 vote ?


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: Yes. I will give the hon. gentleman the figures : The superintendent, $2,500; the assistant superintendent, $1,000 ; two supervisors, $1,500 ; traveling expenses for all the officers of the department, $2,000 ; printing notices and directions such as I have mentioned, $1,500 ; plant material, $1,500 ; building fire guards, $1,000 ; and the payment of men who may be employed temporarily in the fall, $4,000.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: These persons specially employed would not be inspectors of homesteads ?


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: No, the homestead inspectors are not paid out of this vote at all.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Those would be special employees for six weeks ?


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: Yes, special employees.


James Clancy: I understand that the mounted police, the homestead inspectors and the timber inspectors, all join in protecting the timber in that country from fire, and also that they have a right to employ other persons for a short period for the same purpose, and that they are paid out of another vote. Now, the hon. gentleman is asking $15,000 to supplement that service.


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: My hon. friend is not taking into account the size of the district of the homestead inspector. I venture to say it is on the average from 200 to 400 miles, certainly from 200 to 300 miles. There are only four special timber inspectors engaged for a distance of 1,200 or 1,400 miles ; and they are employed in certain localities where their time is almost wholly taken up. The homestead inspectors' time is fully taken up. They simply act for a short time, because we do not want to go to the expense of employing special men when we have these men who are familiar with the country and the people. The object is to utilize for this work the staff we have.


James Clancy: Quite so ; but these gentlemen are covering the territory in that limit, and they are also in a position to call out farmers or others who must obey them, and these farmers are reasonably paid for assisting to protect their own property. Therefore, the machinery may be put in motion entirely irrespective of the chief inspector or those under him. The hon. gentleman will not say that the service has become more efficient by appointing one or two inspectors for the whole country. I am unable to see that by employing this new service the hon. gentleman has greatly remedied the difficulties that existed before. Mr. Stewart went over that country for the purpose of learning the extent of the timber in it. and he was appointed in the session of 1897 for a service unheard of before, and now it has developed into tree planting, because outside of that he has nothing to do. The hon. gentleman's statement has made it pretty dear that only about 10 per cent of this $15,000 is to be devoted to tree planting, whereas 90 per cent of it practically goes into the pockets of his own officials.


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: The hon. gentleman is surely carrying his argument to an unfair length. I must say
that I think the hon. gentleman's argument absurd. I never said that this was altogether for the encouragement of tree planting. The vote states specifically that it is for two purposes; and I stated that it was for the two purposes of protecting the forests and tree planting. The superintendent of forestry has been in office for two years, and his salary has been voted by the House after discussion; and the animus displayed by the hon. gentleman (Mr. Clancy) and other hon. gentlemen at that time is enough to account for the unnecessary length of this discussion. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Clancy) understands that this work cannot be carried on without officers, and I venture to say that no hon. gentleman, will say that, for carrying out the plan outlined the officers are too many. I agree with my hon. friend from Saskatchewan (Mr. Davis) that the vote is a very modest one, considering the work that we are expected to do. We anticipate being able to show good results by carrying on systematic work on these lines for a few years. My hon. friend attempted to leave the impression with the House that this vote of $15,000 except $3,000 would go into the pockets of officials. Having heard the statements and the arguments, he ought not to have tried to leave that misleading impression with the House. The arguments of hon. gentlemen opposite have undergone an entire change during this discussion. At first they said we would require a complete army of men. That was repeated several times. And now the hon. gentleman gets up and says we have too many men. I think that the simple plan that I have explained to the committee a dozen times must commend itself to every man of common sense who has a knowledge of the circumstance as the only plan that can be carried out. We are making use of the ordinary officials of the department, the homestead inspectors, who are familiar with the country and who will take charge of the work. If it is necessary to hire men to protect the forests, these officers are authorized to hire them. Anybody familiar with the country will say that an enormous amount of work in the protection of forests can be done for $4,000. A reasonable explanation having been given and these hon. gentlemen having expressed their views, I do not know how they can justify taking up the time of the House with further discussion.


James Clancy: I am sure the committee will be obliged to the hon. gentleman (Hon. Mr. Sifton) for his lecture. He says that the animus shown on the appointment of Mr. Stewart justified him in the position he takes. Objection was taken to the appointment of Mr. Stewart, not because it was Mr. Stewart, but because Mr. Stewart or any other person would be a useless official. The hon. gentleman has said that we have veered around during


Frederick Debartzch Monk: this discussion. That is not the case. It was said that to give a service that would i cover that country would mean the employment of an army of men, but it was stated at the same time that there might he an efficient service made up, of the mounted police, timber agents and homesteads inspectors who are on the ground, assisted by the settlers whose services could be enlisted.
If the hon. gentleman thinks he defends himself by declaring that there was objection to the appointment of Mr. Stewart or anybody else on personal grounds, he is welcome to that opinion. Why, the minister had hardly warmed the seat he now occupies before he appointed Mr. Stewart. Nobody doubts the hon. gentleman's industry or ability in mastering the details of his department; but, knowing how little time he had, we may well doubt his knowledge at the time he appointed Mr. Stewart. I have nothing to say against Mr. Stewart except that he has been pensioned upon the service of this country for many years. He was employed by the province of Ontario, and when his work ceased there, he had to be taken care of, and the hon. minister took care of him. I have no doubt that the hon. gentleman (Mr. McCarthy) who is whispering to the Minister of the Interior now is telling him Mr. Stewart's history. Mr. Stewart was the Liberal candidate in North Simcoe against the uncle of the hon. gentleman who is coaching the Minister of the Interior. He was defeated there, and a place had to be found for him. And a place was found which was as worthless then as the one he occupies now is. He could never make it important

Mr. McCarthy. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Clancy) is making it very important.


James Clancy: My hon. friend (Mr. McCarthy) is the last one that should have anything to say on this subject. He did not welcome Mr. Stewart as a candidate in North Simcoe, and I am sure that lie is satisfied that Mr. Stewart should be appointed to office that he might be taken care of when he did not succeed in carrying a constituency. The Minister of the Interior says that hon. gentlemen on this side in criticising the appointment of Mr. Stewart are moved by personal animus. I appeal to the minister himself that that is not very high politics. He should be able to give better arguments than that. I do not propose to detain the committee with further discussion


Some hon. MEMBER.: Hear, hear.


James Clancy: I am sure that the hon. gentleman who says ' hear, hear,' would say exactly the same if thousands of new officials were being fastened upon the service of this country. But see what this multiplication of officials leads to. The country to be covered by this service is a
vast country. The hon. minister, in his supplementary estimates, is asking for more money for the outside service in connection with Dominion lands. I do not discuss that now, but I merely refer to the fact that this is not all the money that will be required. It only shows that when you multiply officials you are in the hands of these officials, you lose control of your expenditures and must increase them to serve these officials rather than to serve the interests of the country.,


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: That item being passed, we will take up No. 246.


James Clancy: But the hon. gentleman should take this up item by item. That is the custom.


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: But all the other items were passed, this one being held over in order to give the hon. gentleman (Mr. Clancy) an opportunity to express his views.
Expenses of government in district of Keewatin, $2,190.


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: Of this sum, $600 goes towards the salary of the lieutenant-governor, $480 is for stenographer, and the balance of the money is taken up for the travelling expenses of the lieutenant-governor, who goes out about once a year, and some small expenses for printing and stationery.
Maintenance of lunatics from Keewatin, $2,000. The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR. The district of Keewatin is a sort of noman's land, which, for administrative purposes, comes under the jurisdiction of the lieutenant-governor of Manitoba. The lunatics are brought down from that region to the asylum in Manitoba, and their maintenance is paid for by the Federal government to the provincial authorities. We-have generally taken a vote of $3,000 ; but we think this year $2,000 is likely to be sufficient.
For the relief of distressed Canadians in foreign countries other than the United States, $500.


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: This vote is always taken for cases of emergency, where a British consul in foreign countries advances small sums to send home persons who become stranded and in distressed circumstances in foreign countries ; and the British government look to us for repayment.
Maintenance and construction of roads, bridges and other necessary works in connection with the Hot Spring reservation near Banff station, North-west Territories, $14,420.


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: This is the same vote as last year, and is made up as follows : Salaries, of the superintendent, $1,200 ; caretaker, $740 ; caretaker

of the waterworks. $300 ; caretaker of the museum, $200 : estimate for repairs of road east of the bridge, $1,500 ; repairs to other park roads, $1,000 ; new road, $3,000 ; small house for the caretaker of the herd of buffalos, $500 ; care of buffalos and other animals, including $600 for caretaker, $1,500. Then, it is necessary to put In a pipe for the distribution of the hot water, which is one of the attractions of the park, $500 ; clearing land, $500 ; miscellaneous, $1,500 ; general contingencies ii} superintendent's office, $1,000. We ask for a vote of $2,000 for the puchase of animals. We have now about twenty-six (head of buffalo, and a number of elk. I am satisfied the experiment we have inaugurated of starting a herd of buffalo will be a great success. They are breeding very satisfactorily.
Cost of litigation (Department of the Interior) $1,000.


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: We have always taken that vote, or ever since I have been in charge of the department, to meet any odd case that might turn up where legal expenses are incurred. Cases arise where small costs have to be incurred in connection with the administration of timber lands. It is altogether a provisional vote. We expended last year $170 on two cases.
To provide for the survey of the boundary between the ..Yukon territory and British Columbia from Teslin lake to Alsek river, $20,000.


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: This is for the purpose of sending a survey party to survey the boundary line between the Yukon territory and the province of British Columbia. The boundary is the 60th parallel of north latitude, and the operations of the survey party are set forth in some notes made by the Surveyor General.


Seymour Eugene Gourley: Is the Mr. White-Fraser on that -survey party the inspector of mounted police who has lately been in South Africa ?


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: No. Mr. White-Fraser is a surveyor. My deputy tells me that he has a brother in the Mounted Police.


Robert Laird Borden: Is this a joint survey on behalf of this government and the province ?
The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR No.


Robert Laird Borden: Is there anv arrangement by which the line established will be binding ?


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: Not yet. We undertook it at first at the request of the provincial authorities, and as my hon. friend will see, knowing what the parallel is. I presume it would be advisable, as my hon. friend suggested, before Mr. SIFTON.
going on with that work, to have an arrangement with the British Columbia authorities, so that there may be no question about it. I do not anticipate there will be the least difficulty, because we are doing the work practically at their request.


Robert Laird Borden: At the same time I think it would be desirable that an arrangement should be made.


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: I quite agree with the hon. gentleman.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: i understand that the work will only cost $12,000 for the present season, and the minister has asked for $20,000. What does he want the other $8,000 for ?


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: There are two parties : Mr. White-Fraser's party is estimated to cost $8,000, and Mr. St. Cyr's is estimated to cost $12,000.


Seymour Eugene Gourley: How was this boundary fixed ? Was it fixed by Imperial statute ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: Yes.


Seymour Eugene Gourley: Originally creating the province ?


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: When British Columbia came into confederation she came in with her boundaries.


Seymour Eugene Gourley: Which were fixed by Imperial Act ?


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: Yes.


Seymour Eugene Gourley: Has the boundary never been ascertained on the ground until now ?


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: No.


Seymour Eugene Gourley: How have you got along in regard to jurisdiction ?


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: Until the last year or two there was nobody there, and it is only for the purpose of meeting the actual necessities of the case that we are going over it now.


Seymour Eugene Gourley: Will the hon. gentleman have some more of those maps sent to me? The people of my county are very much infatuated with them, and they have been writing to me about them.
Some resolutions reported.
The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES (Hon. Sir Louis Davies) moved the adjournment of the House.


Robert Laird Borden: What business shall we expect to-morrow ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: A few Bills may be taken up. and we will go on with supply. If the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals is
[DOT]2701

well enough, he will go on with his estimates.


Robert Laird Borden: And if not 7


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: If not, we will take up some of the Interior estimates.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House adjourned at 12.10 a.m. Wednesday.
[Stage Direction]
Wednesday, April 10, 1901.