1901-05-07

GREAT NORTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. HEYD moved that the time for posting private Bills, under the 60th rule, be reduced to three days in regard to the Bill respecting the Great Northern Railway Com-
[Stage Direction]
pany of Canada, in accordance with the recommendation contained in the fourteenth report of the Select Standing Committee on Standing Orders.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 135) respecting the Great Northern Railway Company of Canada.-Mr. Heyd.
Bill (No. 134) to amend the Interpretation Act.-Hon. Mr. Fitzpatrick.

[Stage Direction]
The MINISTER OF FINANCE (Hon. W. S. Fielding) moved that the House resolve itself into Committee of the Whole, tomorrow, on the following resolution :
That it is expedient to enact that there shall be payable to His Majesty in every year out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund of Canada, a sum not exceeding in the whole in any one year the sum of $75,000, for defraying the expenses connected with the maintenance of a branch of the Royal Mint in Canada.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
The MINISTER OF FINANCE moved that the House resolve itself into Committee of the Whole, to-morrow, on the following resolution :
That it is expedient to provide that the Minister of Finance and Receiver General may from time to time authorize the advance to the King's Printer, out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund of Canada, of such sum or sums of money as the said King's Printer may require to enable him to purchase the material required for the execution of orders given or requisitions made under the provisions of chapter 27 of the Revised Statutes of Canada, or of any Act in amendment thereof, and to pay the wages of workmen engaged in the execution of such orders or requisitions, before such orders or requisitions are completed and the same are paid for by the Senate or House of Commons or the department of the government of Canada giving them : Provided .that the sums so advanced shall not at any time exceed $200,000.
He said :	I desire to say that His Excellency, the Governor General, having been made acquainted with the subject-matter of this resolution, recommends it to the favourable consideration of this House.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
The MINISTER OF FINANCE moved that the House resolve itself into Committee of the Whole to-morrow on the following resolution :
Mr. HEYD.: That from and after the first day of July, one thousand nine hundred and one, there shall be paid to the province of Prince Edward Island, in addition to all sums now authorized by law, an annual allowance of thirty thousand dollars, which allowance shall become payable and be paid to the said province half-yearly on the first days of July and January in each and every year, beginning with the said first day of July, one thousand nine hundred and one, such allowance to be paid and accepted in full settlement of all claims of the said province against the Dominion of Canada on account of alleged non-fulfilment of the terms of union between the Dominion and the said province as respects the maintenance of efficient steam communication between the island and the mainland.
He said :	I desire to say that His Excellency the Governor General, having been made acquainted with the subject-matter of this resolution, recommends it to the favourable consideration of this House.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
The MINISTER OF FINANCE moved that the House go again into Committee of Supply.
['There are some reserved items in Public Works. Unless there is some understanding between the Minister of Railways and the member\n\nfor South Lanark (Hon. Mr. Haggart) to the contrary, we will take up railway items. The Minister of Trade and Commerce may submit his estimates.']
Mr. F. D. MONK (Jacques Cartier).: Mr. Speaker, before you leave the Chair, it is necessary for me to refer once more to the Yalleylield strike in order to give the House some explanation as to the facts which, on the 3rd of April last, I laid before the House in moving for all papers, documents and military returns connected with that unfortunate affair. It seems to me I am doubly justified, in doing so, and in taking up a few moments of the time of this House in view of the treatment which was meted out to me on the 25th of April last, when, before the essential papers called for by my motion had been placed before this House, I was made, without any previous notice and contrary to the well-established understandings of this House, the object of a most unjustifiable attack by some of the members of the government and some of the members of this House. It seems to me, Sir, that, in view of the incompleteness of the report and in view of the right hon. the Prime Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) having had due notice that the matter was to be brought up, the right hon. gentleman might have extended to us on this side of the House the courtesy of some information as to the bringing up of this matter by conferring upon it with the leader of the opposition. That is, I believe, the well-established usage of this House and of the British parliament. And. although my right lion, friend may be British to the core, it seems to me that in this instance, he has not observed the ordinary principles of fair play which lie at the foundation of our discussions in this House. Now, Sir, wishing to take up as little time as possible I wiil refer only to those statements which I have made and which were controverted in this

House, not to what I said that is beyond all controversy. What I stated, as the House remembers I stated upon the information of reliable people. My statement can be found at page 2588 of ' Hansard.' And will you allow me, Sir, to say here that I consider not only that it is the right but that it is the bounden duty of any member of the House when he receives information of a nature to show that the efficiency if the public service is impaired through any employee of the service-provided that information is given him by xieople on whom he may rely-to lay that information before this House. And, very far from being called to account, if his statement is couched in proper words, he deserves the praise of this House for so doing. I am astonished to find such extraordinary zeal among some of the bon. gentlemen who sit on the Treasury benches in attacking a man who takes that position. Those of us who have sat in this House in the previous parliament know full well that that zeal was not displayed with great fervour when, after the elections of 1S90, hundreds of civil service employees were dismissed from the service, not upon information laid frankly before the House, not upon the denunciation of an informant who was not ashamed to give his name, but upon the obscure and hidden work of people who merely wanted the removal of these employees that they might get their positions for themselves. Why, Sir, the men who were dismissed in my own county were not promising young men, they were not graduates of Harvard, they were not literary men, but they were men who had spent years in the public service and who, undenounced, were dismissed without even having an opportunity of defending themselves. Mr. Crevier. an obscure man who collected tolls for twenty years at the locks at Ste. Anne's, and who had not once been found at fault by any government, but who was guilty of having seen to it that his name and the names of the members of his family were on tlie electoral list where they had a right to have them, was dismissed for that offence and for nothing else. We had the dismissal of a man of the name of Sauve. another obscure man, the keeper of the Cote St. Paul bridge, who had been placed there by the Hon. Rodolphe LaFlamme, Minister of Justice in the Mackenzie administration and who had been xjromoted by every .succeeding government for his good conduct. He was dismissed without complaint and for what ? This man, who had nine members of bis family to support, who was infirm and bad become infirm in the service of the government, was dismissed to make room for a relative of a member of the House. We had the employees dismissed at Lachine without any cause ever having been assigned, so far as I was able to find out, of their dismissal, men who had been years in the public service. Knowing, as I do, that that has been the exijerience of many of us, I think it is to be regretted that my hon. friend tlie acting Postmaster General and Minister of Labour (Mr. Sutherland) did not display his great zeal at that time in favour of these unfortunate men who the most of them, have not been able to find employment since then.
But leaving that aside and coming to what X then said, and for which 1 was blamed. I stated in connection with the Valleyfield strike that there existed at Val-leyfieid a so-called labour association having a distinct political character, governed and controlled by men having no interest whatever in common with the labouring men of that town. I stated in the second place the fact that on the eve of the general election last fall a strike had been organized among the Valleyfield mill operatives through the efforts of this association, or rather of its leaders, the men to whom I have just referred as having no interest in common with the labouring men. I stated that that strike was brought into existence though there was no difference between the mill company and its operatives proper. The difficulty had occurred among the labourers employed in making the foundations for a new mill, which difficulty, I said, had Ceased several days before and could not explain the violence displayed in the so-called riots afterwards. I said, and the Minister of Public Works took me to task for it, that the recorder of Valleyfield, an ardent and active Liberal worker, was in sympathy with the strikers, that he gave evidence of this by refusing to read the Riot Act when the militia was being stoned and wounded, and refused to exercise his influence to bring about immediately a cessation of that state of affairs. I said that the calling out of the troops was the real cause of resentment and violence on that occasion, there being no trouble whatever between the operatives and the mill company. These are the special and unique features of this strike. I said that the conciliator sent there by the government-and that was the crucial point-had displayed a political bia?, and that his visit to that place had assumed a political character. And what did I conclude ? I concluded that this was a matter which deserved an investigation on account of the special circumstances which I laid before the House. My request in that regard was summarily dismissed by the Prime Minister. And let me say here to you, Mr. Speaker, that if that investigation had been of the character of certain government commissions which were executed in our province after the election of 1896, at a useless cost of thousands of dollars, it is not probable that anybody would have appeared before the commission. X regret that the Prime Minister should have arrived so quickly at the unwise determination that

lie did In refusing a judicial investigation, but I believe, that if a judicial investigation had been ordered, conducted, for instance, by the judge of that district, an old supporter of the Liberal party, and a man of unquestioned and unquestionable integrity and ability, Mr. Justice Belanger, I venture to say that the hope expressed by myself and by the member for Winnipeg (Mr. Puttee) would have been realized, and that we would have been able to find out how 3,000 odd employees who had never on any occasion made any demand which would justify a strike, were submitted to the humiliation of military supervision quite unnecessarily for several days. I concluded, it seems to me correctly, that if what 1 stated to the House was true it was unfair that the town of Valleyfield, the so-called strikers, the men who had never made a demand for increase of wages, should be called upon, as in law they must be, to settle the cost, some $5,000, of this military expedition, (he burden of which we know will ultimately fall upon those very labourers whose conduct in no way justified the action taken by certain people at the time of this so-called strike.
Now, Sir, I spoke of the existence of this association, and I was reprimanded by the hon. member for Vancouver (Mr. Smith), and his words are reported at page 3700 of the ' Hansard' :
Now, these charges were, in the first place against the members of an incorporated union in Valleyfield.
Sir, I have looked everywhere for any proof of the legal existence of this union, and I have found none. I have no affidavits to prove a negative, but I venture to assert that that association has never at any time up to this day received a charter of incorporation from the Central Trades and Labour Union which would give it a right to call itself an incorporated trade union. My hon. friend from Vancouver is, I believe, president of the Trades and Labour Congress of the Dominion. The name of this particular society does not appear upon a list of over 200 chartered unions. I said that association was under the control of men who were not labour men, who were political leaders in that town, and I will proceed to read affidavits in support of that contention, which was contradicted right and left in this House. These affidavits are in French, but I do not think that fact detracts from their value. I have not had means at my disposal to have them translated into English, but I will give the House word for word what they say, and place these affidavits at the disposal of members of this House. The first one is the affidavit of Ferdinand Archambault, labourer, of the city of Valleyfield, who declares solemnly :
I know Mr. Etienne Leger, farmer, president of L'Union OuvriSre; Mr. Louis Bertrand, employee upon the Beauharnois canal, secretary cf Mr. MONK.
the said union, and Mr. Ddchene, treasurer of the said union. These three gentlemen are Liberal leaders, who took an active part in the election which occurred late last fall. Mr. George Loy, M.P., is an honorary member of this Union OuvriSre. The said Union OuvriSre passes for being a political organization, controlled as it is by the officers who are all well-known Liberal leaders.
So much for Ferdinand Archambault.


Mr. CLARKE.: Do you say that the president is a farmer ?


Frederick Debartzch Monk: The president is a farmer.


Mr. LEMIEUN.: What is his name ?


Frederick Debartzch Monk: The secretary, and I shall refer presently to that gentleman, is an employee on the Beauharnois canal. The treasurer, so far from being a labouring men, is a merchant tailor who is an employer of labour, and the three of them are active political partisans.


Mr. COCHRANE.: It is a wonder he did not have a dredging contract.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: My friend, Mr. Bergeron, was never invited to form a part of this association, I need scarcely add. lie was not enough of a labourer for that. The second affidavit is signed by Louis Archambault, artisan, of the city of Valleyfield, who declares solemnly :
First. I have been a labouring man for over ten years, and I earn my livelihood as such in the town of Valleyfield.
Second. I am a member of the St. Jean Baptiste Society and of several other benefit societies.
Third. I made application last summer to become a member of the Union OuvriSre of Valley-field, and I was refused admission as a member.
Fourth. I was refused said admission as a member, and I attribute this refusal to my Conservative political opinions.
Fifth. The officers of the said Union OuvriSre are all Liberal chiefs, who took an active part in the Federal election of last fall; that is to say, the president, the vice-president, the secretary and the treasurer.
(Sgd.) LOUIS ARCHAMBAULT,
And acknowledged before a Justice of the Peace.
I said it was a seeret organization. Here is an affidavit from Alfred Gagne, a labouring man of Valleyfield, who declares solemnly :
I belong to and am an active member of the Union OuvriSre of Valleyfield. In order to attend any of the meetings of the said union, one must give the pass word and exhibit a book of the rules of the union. One of the rules of the union imposes upon all its members the obligation never to repeat or divulge what takes place at the meetings.
I have said so much and I have read these affidavits in order to give the House the justification of what I stated on a previous occasion as to the character of the association. It is not incorporated. It does not form part of one of the 200 odd chartered associations connected with labour. It is a
4541	MAY 7, 1901	4542
secret association bearing tbe name of a labour union, under tbe control of officers who have no interest in common with labourers and who are strong political partisans. I could give other names of gentlemen in the town of Valleyfield who belong to the union, who are not labouring men, who are men of influence and who, strange to say, are all of the same political persuasion. Every bon. member of this House knows that' members are generally asked, in some capacity or other, to join associations of this kind. I repeat that the candidate in the constituency who for twenty years had represented that constituency was never upon any occasion invited to form part of this association, nor was any important man belonging to his side of politics. Now, going a little deeper into the subject, I stated that it was not the operatives who had brought about this strike, which is the worst feature of the case. This circumstance throws some light, as my hon. friend the member for Winnipeg (Mr. Puttee) said, on the utter impossibility of explaining this strike otherwise than by the interpretation which I gave to it on the 3rd of April last. There was no difficulty between the operatives and the mill company. But. that was not what the hon. Minister of Public Works (Mr. Tarte) said. If tbe House will remember the words that he uttered, when I presented my motion, it will find that the hon. Minister of Public Works attributed the strike to the cruelty and unjustifiable exactions of the mill company. This is what the hon. Minister of Public Works said :
The Montreal Cotton Mills Company own probably the largest mills in Canada. They are a strong, (powerful, enterprising corporation. They bought the Buntin property, and undertook to lay the foundations for a new addition to their mill. It was late in the fall ; the weather was cold-indeed, it rained, I suppose, two or three days a week. The men, who were working in the water to the belt, were being paid $1 a day. They thought they were not being paid enough, and I think they were right. I am not here to iustify any strike, or any organization for striking purposes; I state the facts as I know them to be. In Valleyfield, as elsewhere in the district of Montreal, the workingmen formed an organiziflion. Now, I am very sorry that my hon, friend (Mr. Monk) has received so much wrong information.
Now, I stated in tbe House, and tlie fact was not contradicted, but, on the contrary, if bon. members will read tbe debate of tbe 3rd of April last, they will see it was admitted, that it was Mr. Greenshields, acting as attorney for the Montreal Cotton Mills Company, who obtained the signature of the mayor of Valleyfield and the signatures of a couple of other councillors, who are also justices of tlie peace, in order to secure the presence of tbe militia. I stated that this digging of the foundations had ceased several days previous to tbe strike, previous to the violent acts, which had nothing to do with the summoning of the militia and that in reality it was tlie summoning of tlie militia which bad to do with tlie disaffection in tbe town of Valleyfield. Allow me to give tbe House evidence of this, evidence taken for tlie most part out of tbe papers which have been brought down and of which I was deprived from the lltli April, the date of tbe first instalment of tbe return, until after this discussion in tbe House. In the first place, the Labour Gazette itself gives us in very plain words exactly tbe same version as I laid before this House. The Labour Gazette, in an article which I presume emanates from the pen of tbe editor, states :
As appears from this telegram, the mill operatives were not working at the time at which it was sent, and this fact constituted their action a general strike. There were thus, in reality, two distinct sources of friction between the company and its employees. The first, the original strike, begun by the men temporarily employed as labourers in the excavations being made for the new mill, and who were demanding an increase in wages (which strike began on the 22nd of October) ; and the general strike of the mill operatives, which began at the time of the arrival of the troops in Valleyfield, on the evening of the 26th. This latter strike was one which but for the presence of the military in Valleyfield would probably not have occurred, and for this reason is best described as a strike of resentment, or at most, one of sympathy with the original strikers. It was to the strike of the mill operatives that the offer of the friendly intervention of the minister referred.
Further on, at page 103 :
As appears from the company's telegram to the Minister of Labour, the strike of the labourers engaged on the work of excavation ended in the company deciding to discontinue the work; under any circumstances it would have continued only about three weeks longer had no dispute arisen.
Now, Sir, a most unfair and, to my mind, a most unjust advantage was taken of one of the principal operatives engaged in the cotton mills at Valleyfield by my hon. friend for Beauharnois (Mr. Loy), producing before this House a series of affidavits having for their object tbe laying of the responsibility of	this
strike upon one of tbe labourers.	My
lion, friend (Mr. Loy) produced affidavits to show that one Damase Tessier was the man who gave the signal for tbe strike, and tlie boil, gentleman thus endeavoured to saddle tbe responsibility for tbe strike upon him. I think my bon. friend (Mr. Loy) wall have cause to regret that action on bis part, because Mr. Damase Tes'sier, as I am informed, is not a political heeler, not an employee on tbe canal, nor a merchant tailor, nor a farmer, but be is one of tbe conspicuous figures among the operatives of the mill. Mr. Tessier is a man who has risen from the position of ordinary workman to that of foreman, having under liis control fifty or sixty men, and a man of that character -was entitled to receive 'some notice

from tlie lion, gentleman (Mr. Loy) of tlie grave charge which he intended to lay on his shoulders, and given an opportunity of explaining his conduct. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Loy) not having thought fit to do that, I will lay before the House the affidavits of Damase Tessier, to the effect that he never, under any circumstances, took part in the initiation of this strike, and never gave a signal for it. His own affidavit, which is perfectly straightforward in that regard, is corroborated by three or four affidavits, which he has produced in order to put his position Clearly before this House, and to avoid his being open to Diame from the authorities of the mill. This is what Mr. Tessier alleges :
1. I, Damase Tessier, labourer, of the town of VaUeyfieM, do declare solemnly that after taken cognizance of certain declarations produced by Mr. Loy before the House of Commons tending to show that I, on the 21st of October last in the afternoon, according to Prank Lacoste ; on the 22nd October last according to Narcisse Wells, and on the day of the strike according to Emede Laberge, the three signers of the declaration above mentioned, gave the signal of the strike, declare as follows :
1.	I deny all the allegations as not being in conformity with the facts.
2.	Neither directly nor indirectly did I give the signal for the strike in raising my arm or in any other manner whatever.
3.	On the morning of the strike, Mr. Sparrow, my superior, called me to his office in connection with the strike which was then in question, and on my return to the works, in spite of my counsels I found that the labourers had already put on their coats and quit work.
4.	I persisted during the whole time in dissuading the labourers from leaving the works ; contrary to the allegations of the said declaration.
And I make this solemn declaration, etc.
(Signed) DAMASE TESSIER.
This declaration of the foreman, containing the disproof of the allegation that he took a leading part in the initiation of this strike, is corroborated by Athanase Du-breuil, labourer, of the town of Yalleyfield. who, I believe, is working under Mr. Damase Tessier it is corroborated by Mr. Zenopliile Gastien, labourer, of the town of Valley-field, who was one of the men working under Damase Tessier, and both of them declare positively that their foreman took no part whatever, either in the beginning or in any part of the strike. It is corroborated by Mr. Joseph Brisson, labourer, of the town of Valleyfield, who states he was with Mr. Tessier at the time, that he gave no signal and took no part in the initiation of this strike ; it is corroborated by Mr. Ovide Perrault, labourer, of the town of Valleyfield, who declares to the same effect, and by Mr. Jos. Boy, labourer, of Valleyfield, who declares :
I was working under Mr. Damase Tessier at the time the strike took place in Valleyfield in the month of October. Mr. Tessier never, directly or indirectly, induced the men to go on strike


Frederick Debartzch Monk: or had any understanding of any nature whatever with them in order that they should go on strike. On the contrary, he continually counselled them and dissuaded them from going out on strike and endeavoured to induce them to remain upon the works.
Now, Sir, I submit that in justice to this foreman, the House should come to the conclusion that the allegation that he initiated the strike is not well founded, and that the strike, as well as all the proceedings in connection with it, were initiated elsewhere, It is a singular * circumstance that all the action brought to bear upon the Labour Bureau in connection with this strike was brought to bear, not, as tbe law contemplates which was introduced into this House last year, by the employers of labour or by those employed and who had a grievance, but by Mr. Bertrand, tbe employee of the government on the Beauharnois canal. He it was who sought to Interest the Labour Bureau in this strike, who corresponded with the Minister of Labour, wIiq telegraphed to the Deputy Minister of Labour, and who, after the arrival there of the Minister of Labour, played the part to which I shall refer presently. In the correspondence brought down, other than the military correspondence, we find, in the first place, the telegram of Mr. Louis Bertrand, on the 26th of October-that is to say. four days or almost a week after the digging of foundations had ceased-to the editor of the Labour Gazette, in which he says :
As we had no news from you, would like to know the reason you did no<t come.



[Stage Direction]
Then comes a reply from the editor to Louis Bertrand, secretary, Valleyfield-still an employee of the government on the Beauharnois canal:
As editor of Gazette, am unable to leave Ottawa. Am writing you fully.

[Stage Direction]
Editor of the Labour Gazette. We find moreover that in a letter of the same date Mr. King states to Mr. Bertrand, the lockman, employed on the Beauharnois canal :
Dear Sir,-Your telegram of this morning was a surprise to me, as this department had not received any formal communication from the union at Valleyfield to send a representative there.
I notice on the blank form of schedule which you filled in reference to the present strike, under the head of ' remarks," you state that the union would be glad if I came down and saw things for myself as these schedules are sent to both employers and employees, and are only for the purpose of gathering information for publication in the Labour Gazette, a reference of this sort could hardly be regarded as sufficient justification for this department to send any one to look into the dispute in question.
Besides, as editor of the Labour Gazette, I would not on my own initiative feel free to

leave Ottawa without special authorization from the minister.
Since receiving your telegram I have communicated with the Hon. Mr. Mulock, Minister of Labour, who is at present in western Ontario, and will doubtless receive a reply as soon as my telegram reaches him, and I will notify you immediately of the result.
Yours faithfully,
MACKENZIE KING, Editor of the Labour Gazette.
I call the attention of the House to the fact that the employees of the mills having made no demand of any kind whatever, Mr. Bertrand, still warmly influenced by the idea that lie must absolutely defend the interests of those people, and obtain some justification for them ; anxious to come to the help of those strikers who were not on strike, who had made no demand, evidently entered into communication with the Hon. Mr. Mulock. We have not his communication here, which is to be regretted, but we have the answer of the Minister of Labour, and what does he say ? Telegraphing to the lockman at Valley field, he says to him on the 27th October :
Just received telegram from Mr. King, Deputy Minister of Labour, informing me of telegram from you asking government representative to meet parties to Valleyfield cotton mills dispute with a view to conciliatory action. If friendly intervention of Department of Labour acceptable to both parties, I would be pleased render every possible assistance looking to satisfactory settlement if differenced by means either of board of conciliation or arbitration. If both parties desire it, I will be glad to confer with them with a view to selection of satisfactory board and to be a member of the same either as umpire or otherwise. At present much engaged with elections. If parties look favourably upon this offer, would suggest that for present strike be suspended and men return to work, and on the 8th November I will proceed to Valleyfield to confer with both parties and lend every possible assistance in the direction indicated, so as -to bring about such a settlement of matters in dispute as will meet the reasonable demand of both parties. Am under engagement to address public meetings every day (Sunday exoe-pted) until election day. Therefore, to -take up the Valleyfield strike matter until after election would compel me to abandon further part in pending political campaign; nevertheless, am perfectly willing to make this sacrifice if parties to dispute are unwilling to suspend strike, and if they desire my immediate friendly intervention. Am telegraphing to like effect to mayor of Valleyfield and Mr. Greenshields on behalf of Montreal Cotton Company of Valley-field. Perhaps you would see him upon this subject at once.
(Sgd.) W. MULOCK,
Minister of Labour.
Now, let us take the answer of the mill company to this despatch which brought to their knowledge, evidently for the first time, the fact that their operatives wanted something. In the telegram sent by Mr. Green-shields on the 28th of October-and the dates are of some importance-in answer to the telegram of the minister, Mr. Greenshields says :
Your telegram received re strike at Valleyfield. There is no dispute between the company and their operatives, and no demand has been made by them on the company. They are not working, but for what reason we do not know.
The reason was that the troops were there-
The demand for increased wages was made by men who were temporarily employed as labourers in excavations being made for a new mill. This work, under any circumstances, would have been stopped in about three weeks, and, under the circumstances, the -company have decided to discontinue the work. There is nothing to arbitrate or settle between the company or any of their employees. The company appreciate your kind offer.
So I was right when I stated that there was no difficulty at the time Mr. Greenshields' intervention obtained the sending of troops to Valleyfield. There was no difficulty between the mill company and the employees, and we are led to ask ourselves for what reason this strike was brought on ; for what reason Mr. Bertrand, the lock master, the man who had no interest at all in common with these officers, brought about the summoning of troops to Valleyfield and the intervention of the Labour Bureau.
Let us take the acts of the Deputy Minister of Labour after he came to Valleyfield. And perhaps the best way is to take his own account, together with the affidavits which I will lay before the House, and particularly what is set forth in the improved return from the Militia Department -the return which was only brought down after the debate of the 25tli April last, when I was taken to task so severely for having dared to make some reflections on the role played by the Deputy Minister of Labour.
Let me read what the deputy minister says he did at Valleyfield. and I am quoting from page 102 of the Labour Gazette, the account given by the deputy minister himself. It is entitled: ' A settlement affected ' :
Immediately on his arrival in Valleyfield, Mr. King put himself in communication with the company and the men, obtaining, during the course of the day, several interviews with both parties and arranged for a meeting of the strikers to tj9 held in the town hall that evening. At this meeting, a final settlement of the difficulties was arranged. The strieking operatives maintained that the reason they did not return to work was because of the presence of the militia in the vicinity of the mills. They stated that it was because of the militia being, as they believed, called out unnecessarily, and, as they thought, for the purpose of intimidating the men, that the strike among the mill operatives had begun. This cause being removed, they were prepared to return to work at once. As evidence of good faith in the matter, they agreed to return to work the following day, and remain at work provided the troops were withdrawn during the course of the day.
This was on Monday the 29th October. Mr. King arrived in Valleyfield that morn-
[Stage Direction]


ing, and. according to his own statement, immediately busied himself with interviewing both the strikers and the employers. He found out that the presence of the troops was the cause of the irritation, and set to work to remove that cause. He succeeded, and we find in the papers brought down congratulatory messages from the minister in charge of the department. Had Mr. King done what lie says he did, there would be little fault to find, but what I say he did upon arriving, and what I can prove he did, was to call upon, at the very first- not any of the disaffected labourers or mill operatives, who surely were entitled to his first attention, not the mayor of the town of Valleyfield, none of the company's employees-but the fatal Mr. Louis Bertrand, the man who was employed on the canal, who was so eager for government intervention, who was spoiling for fight on behalf of the strikers, and wanting justice done to the mill operatives.
He went to Louis Bertrand first. Then what did he do ? Did he afterwards call upon the striking operatives ? Did he seek, in the words of the statute, to allay the difficulty existing between the operatives on the one side and the mill company on the other ? No, his second visit was to a farmer, Mr. Leger, the great political man of the place, a man whose interests were not those of the operatives. Then did he, in the third place, call upon the operatives of the mills and seek to find out what was the real trouble ? No, he had business at the central Liberal committee rooms, and there he went. There he and the Liberal candidate held quite a long conference together, and I think I am in the judgment of the House when I say that a man, occupying a quasi judicial position, as this young man did on that occasion, should not, under circumstances of this gravity, have gone to the very focus of the political struggle. For there was a great political struggle on hand at the time. He went to the central committee room, and had an interview with the Liberal candidate. What took place at that inerview I do not know. But it was most imprudent, indiscreet and unjust conduct on the part of this emmis-sary of the Dominion government, 'called upon to arbitrate between people who were certainly suffering from the effects of a grave misunderstanding, to have divided his visits between this man Bertrand, Mr. Leger, the farmer, and the central Liberal committee rooms.
I will admit that in the case of a strike or other similar trouble, it is open to a man. occupying a quasi judicial position, to call together the candidates of both parties- both engaged in an important struggle-and seek the intervention of both in order to secure a pacification and settlement of the case. But he never went to see our good friend Mr. Bergeron-he had nothing to do Mr. MONK.
with him. He called upon the three persons I have mentioned ; and I will read an affidavit to that effect:
I, Joseph Cardinal, carter, of the town of Valleyfield, solemnly declare that in October last, at the time the strike took place in the town of Valleyfield, I brought a man named King who represented himseilf as a referee named by the government to settle the strike, from the LaRocque house to Mr. Dechene, and from there to Mr. Etienne Leger, farmer, and president of i'Union Ouvrigre ; thence I took him to the central Liberal Committee, where the Ministerial candidate, Mr Loy, came out to the carriage and held a considerable conference with the said King. And I make this declaration conscientiously believing the same to be true, etc.
So, on arriving at Valleyfield, Mr. King saw fit to call, did call, upon active political partisans. And, what is even more serious to my mind, we have the declaration that be called at the Liberal central committee and held a long conference with the Liberal candidate.
Mr. LOY.: May I ask the bon. gentleman (Mr. Monk) when Mr. King called at the committee room ?


Frederick Debartzch Monk: At what time ?


George di Madeiros Loy: Yes, at what time ? Was it previous to the meeting that had been held or after it ?


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I do not know. The affidavit does not mention the hour.


Mr. TALBOT.: Nor the day-whether it was on the day of his arrival or not.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: My bon. friend (Mr. Talbot) must not mix liimself up with things he knows very little about. The day may be of great importance to my hon. friend, hut, as it happens that Mr. King was only there one day, it is not easy to raise much controversy-


Hon. Mr. SUTHERLAND.: I thought Mr. King was there two days.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: W'ell, we will look it up.


Robert Franklin Sutherland: I gathered that from what the hon. gentleman (Mr. Monk) read.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Is there any doubt about the interview ?


Frederick Debartzch Monk: No, there is no doubt about that, but there is great doubt about what took place at the interview. I said that Mr. King had been there one day, hut the hon. acting minister (Mr. Sutherland) thought lie had been there two days. The difference is not very great-but the hon. minister is mistaken ; Mr. King was there one day.


George di Madeiros Loy: I beg the hon. gentleman's pardon for interrupting him, but I should like the House to be well Informed of the facts, and it is very important to know whether

Mr. King's call upon myself was on liis arrival or on his departure. I may say for the Information of the House, that it was on his departure-when he was going to the station.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I would not for an instant call in question the statement of my hon. friend (Mr. Loy). Mr. King was there one day. Why do I say that ? Because he came down on the 29th, and, as shown by a copy of a telegram to be found at page 22 of the first report, he telegraphed on the 30th to the minister in charge of the Bureau that he was returning to Montreal that day-he was there twenty-four hours. Now let us for a moment leave aside these, to my mind, most injudicious visits paid by this gentleman charged with that important mission concerning employers and employees-and at a time of political ferment, doubly injudicious on his part-and let us take up for one moment the statement made in Mr. King's own language : that he had settled the strike. My hon. friend the acting minister put on sackcloth and ashes and declared that it was an awful pity that this young man who had stopped bloodshed and destruction of property should be attacked in this way in the House. The hon. gentleman probably took as perfectly accurate the statement made by Mr. King. And we had not, at that moment, the return from the Militia Department. I claim, amongst other things, that some credit is due to the military commanders who went out there and who, as I will show very briefly, by their firmness, their courage and their tact brought the strike to a close and settled the whole thing up before Mr. King came there at all. I will show that, and I think that having shown it, I shall have demonstrated that the militia who went out there and who, with their commanders, got pretty well knocked about and maimed, are entitled to a little credit. Mr. King arrived there on the 29th, which was a Monday. Now, there were three officers concerned in the suppression of this strike-as we have agreed to call it-


Robert Franklin Sutherland: Would the hon. gentleman (Mr. Monk) allow me to ask him if that is the only affidavit concerning Mr. * King that he intends to read ?


Frederick Debartzch Monk: No, there is another.


Robert Franklin Sutherland: I would like to see them, if he would be kind enough to allow me.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: It comes in later, but if the hon. gentleman desires it, I will read it now.


Robert Franklin Sutherland: I would like to see them after the hon. gentleman has read them.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: There were three officers concerned in the suppression of this strike. Lieut.-Col. Roy, commanding the district of Montreal ; Lieut.-Col. Ibbotson, commanding 143J
the principal detachment of troops that went to Valleyfield and who, as Well as Lieut.-Col. Roy gives us a long circumstantial report, which we had not before the House when this matter was discussed on the 25th April. There was also Lieut.-Col. La-belle, commanding the 56th Battalion of Montreal, who came out subsequently. I have no hesitation in saying that any person who reads the report of these three commanding officers cannot fail to come to the conclusion that they are deserving of the very highest credit. They displayed firmness, they displayed courage, they displayed gentleness, and they displayed tact ; and it was to them alone, in co-operation with the authorities of the place,' and in no way to Mr. King, that we owe it that the whole matter was settled. For it was practically settled on Saturday, the 27th October, and Mr. King, who claims somewhat greedily for himself the whole merit of the settlement, arrived there on Monday, the day of the departure of the troops.
Now I will quote from the reports of Lieut.-Colonel Roy. These reports are circumstantial, and I believe there is not the slightest doubt as to their accuracy. Paragraph 5 of this report says :
On the afternoon of the 26th of October, I received a communication signed by a few councillors of Valleyfield-' Exhibit E '-requesting the withdrawal of the force, stating that peace and order was now restored and the presence of troops was no longer a necessity; seeing that the excitement continued the same, and threats were freely made of a further attack the same night, I had to decline complying with this request. A copy of my reply-' Exhibit F'-is also inclosed.
That statement is corroborated by the protest of a certain number of councillors, and by the reply of Colonel Roy, who says that he could not comply with their request and withdraw the troops. We have the proof that on the 26tli there was already some kind of a settlement. In paragraph 6 he goes on ;
On the 27th October, seeing no change in the attitude of the rioters, but things not getting any worse, I returned home a detachment of about 150.
On the 27th he began returning his troops.
Things went on smoothly, and on the 30th October I received a letter from Mayor Lange-vin-' Exhibit G '-informing me that the employees of the Montreal Cotton Mills Company had returned to their work, and that peace had been restored, and asking for a withdrawal of troops. I immediately gave Instructions to that effect, and all were withdrawn with the exception of the cavalry, who remained until the 31st, owing to being unable to provide necessary transport for them-' Exhibit H '.
Turning to the report of Lieut.-Colonel Ibbotson, we have an account of the return of the troops previous to the arrival of Mr. King upon the scene of action. At page

10 of liis report addressed to Lieut.-Colonel Roy, he says : [DOT]
I was present with you at a peace conference, which was heild at Mr. Lacy's house, on Friday afternoon, when negotiations were trying to be effected between the mill authorities and the strikers, and at the time that letter was addressed to me and signed by ten aldermen of the town, two of whom signed a requisition calling out the militia, in which letter they asked me to withdraw ithe troops, as peace and quietude had been restored. The answer to same was made by yourself, and in which I thoroughly concurred, being of the opinion, and from personal observations, that peace and harmony had not been restored, the fact of the mill hands not returning to their work on Friday was sufficient proof of the same. I proceeded with you in person, also being accompanied by Major Stuart and Lieut. Simpson, to the town hall, where we were .told by the chief of police, who bad delivered the above-referred to letter, that the aldermen were in session. We there learned, and were told that the above-referred to officials were in sympathy with the strikers-
These aldermen are all Liberals,
*-and that if we did not retire all our patrols, there would be serious trouble again that Friday night. This matter of retiring troops within our lines was acceded to on the assurance that no appearance of a gathering of any kind would take place during the night, but if we did not do so we might expect further trouble.
Coming to his report of what took place on Saturday morning :
Saturday morning, the 27th, passed off quietly. On Saturday afternoon half the infantry were relieved from further duty and returned to Montreal. Saturday night stones were thrown at a sentry, and an attempt was made to out electric wires near the Hussars' horse quarters. This was the only incident that occurred during Saturday night. On Sunday church parades were held by the Roman Catholics and Protestants, under command of Lieut.-Col. Labelle and Major Carson. Sunday passed off quietly, we continuing to keep the whole of our force within the lines referred to as our headquarters-[DOT]-
That was the 29th, the day of the arrival of the deputy minister.
-and on Monday ail the mill hands having returned to work, and there being no further cause for suspicion of a return of trouble, arrangements were made with the railway company for the remainder of the troops' withdrawal to Montreal. The infantry, numbering about 200, left by special train, about 1.30, the cavalry remaining over night in consequence of the railway people not being able to supply cars to transport the horses.
Therefore, quiet was restored on Sunday. On Monday it was decided that the troops should be withdrawn, the infantry left at 1.30 of that day, but the cavalry did not leave because the railway authorities could not provide sufficient accommodation. The men returned to their work. And yet we have the statement of the actiug minister, and the report of this young man himself, in which not once does he mention the work, the most difficult, the most danger-


Frederick Debartzch Monk: ous and, in some respects, the most delicate work done by the military commanders, who, in reality, put a stop to the trouble and succeeded in allaying all suspicion, and were practically off the ground before the deputy minister arrived. I refer to the statement contained in the report of the deputy minister, that, in view of the circumstances as he found them on his arrival, it was necessary for him to hold a meeting at the town hall that night. That was Monday night after the infantry had left, and when the cavalry horses were waiting for transport the following morning. He held a meeting that night. I do not know what took piace at that meeting, but it must be remembered that Mr. King did not know the language of the vast majority of those he addressed upon the occasion.


Rodolphe Lemieux: They all speak English in Valleyfield.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Nine-tenths of the inhabitants of Valley-field speak English. There is scarcely a man there who does not talk English, as the hon. member for Valleyfield (Mr. Loy) knows very well.


George di Madeiros Loy: X think it is a fact, Mr. Speaker, which is well known by the hon. gentleman, because the former member for Beauharnois, Mr. Bergeron, often addressed public meetings in English there.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: It grows darker and darker. I will not take back what I said, and members of this House will ask why, if the people understood English so well, did not the great pacificator address himself to these men directly, and why did he require an interpreter ? He had an interpreter with him. When I speak to hon. members of this House I do not require an interpreter. But Mr. King required an interpreter, and who did he take ? There were in Valleyfield justices of the peace, there were disinterested persons, but whom do you think he took ? Why, he took the ever necessary, the ubiquitous Mr. Bertrand, an employee on the canal. He was the man who interpreted the thoughts, the suggestions and the counsels of the deputy minister. My hon. friends have asserted that the employees understood English perfectly but they have not asserted that the deputy minister understood French and the ubiquitous Mr. Bertrand spoke to the people in the language with which my hon. friend and myself have the advantage of being familiar. He spoke French.


Rodolphe Lemieux: That is quite different.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: What did lie say. what was the secret ? Nobody can speak of what took place there, but this is quite certain that he had an interpreter.


Mr. KEMP.: Was it a public meeting ?


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Was it a private meeting or a public meeting ? That it was not a public meeting appears to be quite understood. We have not been able to find out exactly what took place, but it was asserted next day, and if my voice reaches to Valleyfield they will know that it is telling the truth, that political matters had been chatted over at that meeting.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Do I understand the hon. gentleman to say it was a public meeting or a secret meeting ?


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I understood that it was a secret meeting, that the door was closed, and that the people who went there were told that it was a private meeting.


Rodolphe Lemieux: How uues my iion. friend know that there was an interpreter for Mr. King if it was a secret meeting ?


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Oh, my hon. friend is a little too smart. I have found out something. I have read Sherlock Holmes, and I am something of a detective myself. Even Sherlock Holmes was baffled sometimes, and I do not pretend to know what was said.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I think that is a good story.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Well, it is supported by affidavits : that is the principal thing. This is the affidavit of Damase Tessier, labourer, of Valleyfield, in the district of Beauharnois, who declares solemnly :
I am a member of the Union Ouvriere of this town. I was present at the meeting of the Union Ouvriere at which Mr. King assisted. He addressed the meeting in the English language, and the secretary, Mr. Bertrand, repeated in French what was being said in English.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS. (Hon. Mr. Tarte).: There is no harm in that.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I did not understand all that was said. However, I understood that Mr. King asked if the labourers -would return to work and on what conditions. The answer was that th'ey were willing to return If the troops were retired. I make this affidavit solemnly believing the same to be true.


Onésiphore Ernest Talbot: They went to work on Monday morning.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: My hon. friend (Mr. Talbot) has a habit of mixing up things that he knows nothing about. Does lie suppose that these 3,000 employees went back to work on Monday morning, that they waited until the train "left, and that the moment they saw the troops leave, they returned to work ? My hon. friend does not live in a large centre, and he does not know how these things happen.


Onésiphore Ernest Talbot: The meeting was on Monday night.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I have referred to the position taken by the recorder on that occasion. The recorder is an ardent Liberal, and I venture to assert that he seemed to be in sympathy with the strikers, which inflamed the indignation of the hon. Minister of Public Works. But, this military report is perfect Koran ; you find everything in it. It reminds me of the story of the barbarian who destroyed the library of Alexandria. He said : WThat is the difference if what is contained in these books that I have burned is in the Koran ? IVe have the Koran, and if it is not in the Koran, we uo not want anything else. All I require is in this report. We find everything in it. It was laborious getting it down. Any person who has ever been concerned with strikes and riots, as I was on one occasion, knows that it is always a difficult moment when violence takes place. Let us return to the report of Lt.-Col. Ibbotson. in which we find Mr. Papineau mentioned. Lt.-Col. Ibbotson said :
I must here state that at the hour referred to when the crowd apparently had dispersed, the mayor left with my consent to proceed to his home, promising to return in at least one hour. This he did not do, nor could I reach him that evening by messenger or telephone communication ; in fact, no magistrate was available to render assistance.
The mayor had been mobbed, and had been forced to leave the place.
The riot continued and we continued to suffer at the hands of the mob for some time when Mr. Papineau, the recorder of the town of Valleyfield reported to me at my headquarters, he haying come through a crowd and admitted things were at a very serious juncture. I requested him to proceed with me to perform the duty of reading the Riot Act, which he hesitated to do for the reason as stated by himself, and which I concurred in, and indeed, felt earlier in the day, that the force at my disposal was not of sufficient strength. The number of points and the distances to be covered were so numerous and extensive, that I felt that I ought to have a stronger force at my command, and he (Mr. Papineau) assured me that our strength, without resorting to the use of our rifles would be totally inadequate to effectually disperse the mob, who at that time must have numbered thousands. While conversing with him, injured men were being brought in to receive attention. At that time, ten were under the care of Surgeon Major Campbell.
While the recorder had gone through the crowd that threatened the militia, and while lie was conversing with rne commander, wounded men were being brought in, although he had the power to prevent that unfortunate state of things. Let its turn to the report of Lt.-Col. Roy, who mentions the position taken by Mr. Papineau on that occasion. He says, on page 4 :
A Mr. Papineau at the meeting who appeared to be very familiar with -what was going on, on the side of the rioters, informed me that he would guarantee there would be no trouble on that night if I would withdraw- patrols and


George di Madeiros Loy: Would the hon. gentleman please explain how it is that Mr. Bergeron did not take a majority in parishes where Mr. MONK.
there was no strike, and where there were no persons connected with the strike ; the parish of St. Timothe, for instance.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I will give what proof I have as to the majority in a moment. In the town of Valleyfield men not concerned in any way with the cotton mill, and not identified with the militia, could not imagine why there should be a reversal of popular favour against Mr. Bergeron, who, after having 105 majority in his favour in 1896, found himself in a minority of 312 last election.


Robert Franklin Sutherland: There are lots of experiences like that throughout the Dominion.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Not many of that kind.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: There are very good reasons in this case. The people were not free in Valleyfield in 1896, and my friend knows it I am sure. They were terrorized and tyrannized, and something worse, I think.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I deny it in the first place, and in the second place I have lost confidence in the statements of my hon. friend.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I am very sorry for it.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I have lost confidence to a very large extent, because I find that in this matter of this strike he has not stated things absolutely in conformity with the facts.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: We will see.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I wish to read to the House a very short article from a newspaper published in the town of Valleyfield.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: By whom ?


Frederick Debartzch Monk: By Mr. Boyer, I believe.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: He was dismissed.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I believe no reputable man would have published the statement that I will read to the House in a newspaper having reference to an event which took place in his own town, unless there was some foundation of truth in that statement.


George di Madeiros Loy: May I ask the hon. gentleman if the proprietor of this paper is responsible.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I believe he is, I have no reason to doubt his responsibility. I believe he is just as responsible as my hon. friend (Mr. Loy) himself.


George di Madeiros Loy: He is not. He is only a boy, and his father is not responsible for him.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I may tell my hon. friend that there is nothing objectionable in this article at any rate.


George di Madeiros Loy: I only want to put the facts Ije-fore the House.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: We live in a country where the press is free, and can publish anything which twelve of our compeers do not condemn.


George di Madeiros Loy: There are objectionable articles in that paper for which I would hold that person to account if he were responsible.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: The House will judge.


Rodolphe Lemieux: What paper is that ?


Frederick Debartzch Monk: The Salaberry. This article is entitled 1 Truth, if you please,' and it says :
Mr. Monk last week put before the House the interesting and now celebrated question in regard to the strike which took place in Valley-field during the last elections. Mr. Monk, while be stated a good lot of truths, has placed his finger upon a point which is extremely unpleasant to the political heelers of our good little town; that is to say, upon whom rests the responsibility of this strike. Mr. Tarte, who cannot swallow his defeat of 1896, has found the means, under pretext of re-establishing the facts from a Liberal standpoint, to completely discolour what really took place at the time. Thus, for example, the town of Valleyfield counted 6,000 souls in 1896, and to-day it would have
12.000	according to the hon. minister. Thus, under the Liberal regime this town, in five years, would have doubled its population. Beg pardon ; but to be faithful to truth one should have said that in 1896 our town counted more than 7,000 souls, and that since the census of last winter there are 10,790-a slight error of
3.000	souls, but what is this for an hon. minister
of the government. The minister has also affirmed that there were as many Conservatives as Liberals in the Union Ouvriere of Valleyfield. We have reason to doubt this assertion, but there is one thing of which we are quite sure, and which the hon. minister knows as well as we do. It is this :	The president of Union
Ouvriere is an ardent Liberal, Mr. Etienne Leger, a farmer. The vice-president, Mr. Ddehene, Liberal-Radical, is a merchant tailor, and finally, the secretary-treasurer, the ubiquitous Mr. Bertrand, is employed by the Federal government on the Lachine canal. None of these three gentlemen is a labourer by trade. Nevertheless, all three politicians, well known, used the labourers of Valleyfield as their instrument to arrive at their ends. Nay, whatever may be said and whatever may be done, everybody here knows that this strike was got up by three or four political heelers, who managed to induce those among the ranks of the labourers to beat the Conservative candidate, and the proof is that Mr. Bergeron was stronger in the county outside of Valleyfield than in 1896. Mr. Monk has merely lifted the corner of the veil that covers the causes of the results of this unfortunate affair. The contestation, which will probably continue after the session, has in store for us other surprises and other emotions upon the same subject. Events will show whether it was Mr. Monk who told the truth or the Minister of Public Works.
I submit this article for the consideration of the House, and I think X am abundantly justified in the position which I have taken
in this matter. I would be the last man to carry out a policy which led to such distressful results as the dismissing of men in 189ti without any reason whatever. I have heard it stated in this House, that the editor of the Labour Gazette, the deputy minister is a young man of promise. The articles which I have read in the Labour Gazette lead me to believe that there is truth in that statement, although I must confess that the articles of October, just before the election, did not please me as much as the other articles. But I think I have done enough to lead this House to the conclusion that the minister, who seems to be very friendly with that young man. might very properly have taken him into his chamber and told him that when called upon to perform, so to speak, judicial functions on that occasion, at a time of great difficulty. he should have avoided calling upon any but the parties immediately interested; that he should have avoided calling upon men who above all others were known to be identified with a political party, and not the protectors of the labouring men. It is all nonsense-Mr. Bertrand cares no more for the interests of the labouring men than he does for his duties as a government employee. Mr. King should have avoided calling on the Liberal candidate at the Liberal committee rooms or holding any conference with him to which the opposing candidate was not a party. It was indiscreet, it was not fair, it was not right. And when in the evening he saw fit to holct a meeting, he was wrong in employing as an interpreter this employee of the canal, who seems to me to have taken a most disgraceful part in the whole of this transaction. He seems to me to be the man principally responsible for the charge east on the country or the town in connection with this strike. I have no hesitation in saying that any man who reads the reports which have been brought down to this House cannot fail to arrive at the conclusion that but for the interference of politics and the political heelers in this affair, there would have been no troops, no strike, no bad feeling, and no injudicious waste of money.
The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS, (Hon. ,T. Israel Tarte). Mr. Speaker, on the 3rd of April last, the hon. member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) brought to the attention of the House the troubles tliat have taken place at Valleyfield. More than thirty-five days have elapsed since he got up from his seat in parliament and made a speech to which we all listened with great attention. The hon. gentleman is a responsible man; he occupies a strong position at the bar; he is a well-known gentleman: and his statements had a good deal of effect for a time. Those statements he had abundant time to substantiate and prove. The House has just heard what he has said. The House would like to hear what he said then. He accused, in very

strong and emphatic language, the Deputy Minister of Labour. I shall read his words -here they are. After reading what was the duty of the Deputy Minister of Labour, he added :
Though that is the duty of Mr. King under the circumstances, I am credibly informed that he did the very opposite. He became a political agent. He met the leading people in Val-leyfield and told them, the government were prepared to do a great deal for the success of this strike, hut it was all-important that they should support Mr. Loy, who was the Liberal candidate.
These are the words which my hon. friend uttered, and for which it seems to me he should apologize immediately. He is unable to substantiate these words; he has not read a solitary word to substantiate them, and he is unable to do so. I challenge him to substantiate them; he cannot do it. He said :
So Mr. King became, when there, an active canvasser.
Where is the evidence of that, Sir ? There is none. 1 leave the hon. gentleman to the judgment of the House and of the labouring classes and of the community at large. He has made statements that are inaccurate. He has not invented these stories; he is not that kind of a man. The stories have been told to him by unreliable men, and it seems to me it is his duty to-day to l'ise from his seat and state that those men did not inform him correctly. There is no shame in one saying that he has been misinformed. I may say that I would take pride in saying so if I were in the hon. gentleman's place. He has been as badly informed in reference to Mr. Papineau. What did he say on the 3rd of April ?
Mr. Papineau joined with the rioters.
I took him to task a little later on for having used those words. He said, ' I did not say that;' but all the same the hon. gentleman uttered those words, and to-day what evidence has he produced ?


Frederick Debartzch Monk: The hon. gentleman does not think I produced any evidence of that ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The hon. gentleman has not and cannot produce any evidence that Mr. Papineau joined with the rioters. What Mr. Papineau did was this. He was asked to read the Riot Act, and he declined to do it. Why did he decline ? My hon. friend knows right well that when the Riot Act is read, the military commander has the right to give the troops orders to fire. Well, the population of Valleyfield is a peaceful population. It may be a little hot at times, but it is a peaceful and honourable population. My hon. friend gives to the military forces tlie credit of having settled the difficulty. Tlie present government resorted to other means. We are a government of peace, Mr. TARTE.
a* government ol' harmony between all classes of the community. My hon. friend prefers war to peace. We prefer peace to war. Mr. King was called to Valleyfield after the troops had been called out. The troops had been called out by the Cotton Mills Company; they are responsible for that. Mr. Greenshields, as my hon. friend said very properly, acted for the Montreal Cotton Mills Company. Instead of applying to the Minister of Labour or to Mr. King to try to bring about a settlement, they preferred to appeal to force. I am sorry to say this was the means-force, violence, tyranny. I use strong words, hut I know that I am using them rightly, because I witnessed in Valleyfield such a state of tyranny in 1800 such as I never witnessed anywhere else. The Dominion Cotton Mills, instead of resorting to peaceful means, called out the troops. The troops went there. The Dominion Cotton Mills apparently were anxious that the Riot Act should be read, and I congratulate Mr. Papineau and all the justices of tlie peace in Valleyfield. both French and English, on having refused to read it.
Mi-. MONK. I do not know' whether the hon. gentleman has read the report of Lt.-Cols. Roy and Ibbotson. If he has, he is doing them a very great injustice by saying that nobody desired that the Riot Act should be read.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I have read their report. They asked Mr. Papineau to read the Riot Act, and he refused, and properly refused. There was no man killed. A few stones were thrown, and the soldiers were just as well armed with their guns as the populace was. There was some little tussle, which did not amount to anything. Would my hon. friend tell me that had he read the Riot Act and somebody had been killed, Mr. Papineau would not have been guilty of murder ?


Frederick Debartzch Monk: My hon. friend evidently has not read, that part of the report of Lt.-Col. Ibbotson, in which it is explained that he wanted the Riot Act read in order that he might fire a volley in the air.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: We hear a good deal about volleys in the air on the other side of the line, and we do not wish to have that sort of thing here. We can settle our difficulties without even firing volleys in the ah\ and the best proof is the fact that the strike was settled without any bloodshed or serious trouble after all, and without any volley.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: There was a volley fired in the air.	[DOT]


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: If there was, it was not fired after the Riot Act was read. There wais nobody killed anyhow, which is the most important feature of the case. The hon. gentleman knows
45G1

that that is not the first strike which has taken place at Valleyfield. There had been a big strike before that. I do not wish to be unfair towards the Montreal cotton mills- very far from it-but I say without hesitation that Mr. Galt, who is the largest shareholder, recognized that something was wrong in the management and dismissed the former manager. Why ? Because Mr. Gait understood that his management was not what the management of a mill in a good Christian community should be.
My hon. friend is veyy much exercised over the fact that the president of the workingmen's association is a Liberal, that the secretary is a Liberal, and that Mr. Bertrand, one of the officers, is connected with the canal. Well, there are a great many government employees at Ottawa who are connected with labour associations. Are we to dismiss them ? Is it a crime for them to be connected with those associations ? It is not. It appears that Mr. Leger, the president, owns a farm. But, there is no crime in a labouring man owning property, and it is not necessary, in order that a man should belong to a labour association, that he should work every day with his hands. My hon. friend from Vancouver (Mr. Smith), and my hon. friend from Winnipeg (Mr. Puttee) do not work by the day, and they are certainly connected with labour organizations. The men my hon. friend has named in Valleyfield. as members of the association, are entitled to belong to it. Mr. Des-ch6ne is a tailor, but a tailor is a workingman. It is not necessary to work with the shovel in order to be a workingman. A typographer is a workingman, Mr. Leger is a workingman, and all those men belong to the Liberal association.
My hon. friend is surprised that the majority of the worthy gentleman who represents Beauharnois (Mr. Loy) was greater in Valleyfield over Mr. Bergeron than was Mr. Bergeron's majority over me, but, I have already told the House that in the election of 1890 the men of Valleyfield were tyrannized in a way that no member of parliament would countenance here. Would you believe me when I tell you that on the polling day. Mr. Simpson, the ex-manager, went so far as to lock up the windows with boards, so as to impress the men with his great power and strength, and every poor workingman was obliged to go to the polls in passing through the same door. Mr. Simpson called all those workmen in the day before polling and intimated to them, in a way that did not admit of argument, that if they did not vote for the Conservative candidate, things would go wrong. Many of these men resisted and were dismissed, and many of those dismissed, even after we had been in office, have not been taken on again. But, of course, I have nothing to say with regard to the present management, because the former manager has been dismissed. Let my hon. friend ask Mr. Galt, who was a political
friend of his, and Mr. Galt will tell him that the ex-manager mismanaged things in such a way that Mr. Galt, had he noticed it before, would not have stood it for twenty-four hours.
My hon. friend has read affidavits, but those affidavits have not disproved any solitary statement that the hon. member for Beauharnois has made, and especially they have not substantiated what my hon. friend said on the 3rd of April. I do not care to split hairs, but the most important accusation which my hon. friend has brought is that against Mr. King. That accusation he has not been able to prove ; and in the absence of evidence, I call upon him again to make an apology to Mr. King.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Well, when a member of parliament has made the statement, that Mr. King told the people of Valleyfield that the government would do much to help them in this strike, and has failed to prove that statement, is he not bound to say that he was misinformed ? I know who has misinformed him.


Some hon. MEMBERS: We all know.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: My hon. friend has a better parliamentary reputation than the man who gave him this wrong information, and it is for my hon. friend to decide whether he ought not to admit that he was misinformed or not. But, all the same, the facts will remain-he has been misinformed. Now I cannot insist too strongly upon the danger involved in the doctrine-if I may call it a doctrine- that the hon. gentleman has propounded in saying that it was wrong of the minister to send Mr. King to Valleyfield. There was a strike ; the troops had been called out; there was danger of bloodshed. The Department of Labour had been organized a few weeks before and the Minister of Labour, to prevent bloodshed and to bring about peace, sent down the Deputy Minister of Labour. Peace was re-established, harmony wasl restored-and my hon. friend (Mr. Monk) blames the Minister of Labour and brings against the able young deputy minister accusations which he cannot prove but which he is unwilling to retract. The hon. gentleman is not acting in the way we in Montreal have been accustomed to see him act. He is capable of better things ; and I hope that as soon as he is able to get out from the difficult corner in which he has placed himself he will have a better appreciation of his position.


George di Madeiros Loy: I do not think, Mr. Speaker, that it is necessary for me to refer at any length to the remarks made by the hon. member for .Tacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) in reference to this matter. I must confess to very much I surprise that he has not produced the affi-

davits to disprove the statements which I had made and in proof of the statements which he made on the 3rd April. I think it is first my duty to advert to the fact that 1 have been accused of want of courtesy toward the hon. gentleman (Mr. Monk) in not having notified him of my intention to bring the matter before the House.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I beg the hon. gentleman's pardon-I did not refer to him at all: I blamed the Prime Minister.
Mr. 1.0 Y. In a previous address, the hon. gentleman did reflect upon me in this respect, as also did the leader of the opposition (Mr. Borden, Halifax) in proof of this let me quote the remark of the hon. leader of the opposition :
The remark I was about to apply to the hon. gentleman has still force, notwithstanding that fact, with regard to the hon. gentleman who has seen fit to bring this motion up without saying a word to my hon. friend from Jacques Cartier on the subject. Whatever delay has taken place in the matter does not at all justify an hon. gentleman getting up in this House without notice to the gentleman whose conduct he intends to attack, and proceeding to make such an attack as this.
Now, the notice of motion which the hon. member for Jacques Cartier gave was first placed on the Order paper on the 21st February. The hon. gentleman made his motion on the 3rd April. The House will remember that it had been understood that an adjournment should take place on Friday at six o'clock. In order to reach home. I was obliged to take the train at 4.20, and I left the House at 4.05 and the hon. gentleman had not at that time made his motion. On several occasions the notice was called, as mentioned by the right hon. Prime Minister, when I was in my seat, and the hon. gentleman (Mr. Monk) did not see fit to make his motion. On this occasion also I have had no notice of the matter being brought up to-day and no chance to make any preparation. However no preparation is necessary. Has the hon. gentleman from Jacques Cartier disproved the statements I made and the affidavits I brought before the House in refutation of the statements made by the hon. gentleman on the 3rd April ? Speaking on the 3rd April, the hon. gentleman said :
Briefly, the facts are these. Last spring an association was formed In the town of Valley-field bearing the name of ' L'Union LibSrale.' The object was to protect workingmen by seeing that their rights were on all occasions properly vindicated. But as the name savoured a little tco much of. politics, it was changed -to that of ' L'Union Ouvriere,' ' the workingmen's union.' Its president was a man by the name of Etienne Leger, the vice-president and treasurer was one Joseph Dezy-two prominent Liberals of that locality.
And the hon, gentleman goes on that this was more like a political organization than Mr. LOY.
a labour union. Now, I produced affidavits on the 25th April denying the statement that this union was used for political purposes. Has the hon. gentleman brought any proof contradicting me ? Not at all. He has satisfied himself with mere statements in regard to these individuals. Now, I just want to say a few words in connection with this strike and the causes of it. Let me say first that I believe, notwithstanding what the hon. gentleman has said, that the town of Valleyfield has a population of between 11,000 and 12,000, as will be proven when the census is completed. This town owes its existence, to a large extent, to the water powers which are there and which are taken advantage of by the Montreal Cotton Company. I may say that the Montreal Cotton Company has been very much assisted by the town of Valleyfield by bonuses given to it as well as by commutation of taxes. And with respect to the property which has been recently mentioned as purchased from the Buntin estate and on which it is the intention of the company to erect further large additions to its present works, I may say that the town of Valleyfield is giving the company, besides a commutation of taxes, I think, for twenty or twenty-five years, a sum of $50,000. So. I think the town of Valleyfield has shown liberality in dealing with the Montreal Cotton Company; and it was only reasonable to expect that the company would show the same liberality in dealing with its employees. Now, this company have had several strikes, and these strikes have been due to differences between tlie employees and the management with respect to rates of wages. As to this strike, what are the facts ? Men working up to their waists in water were paid $1 per day ; whereas employees of contractors working alongside of these men, though they had work that was not so wet, were paid $1.25 a day. There was dissatisfaction. I wish to-say that the strike was not at all caused by some of the employees who are now being blamed, but was due to the influence of a political party. I wish to blame the Conservative party as being the cause, and if a commission of this House is appointed to investigate, I think my statement will be established. And I think it will be very much in the interests of the town of Valleyfield. of the employees of the Montreal Cotton Company and of the country generally that a commission should be appointed to investigate this matter and place the guilt upon the proper shoulders. Let me refer to some of these persons who have been accused of having taken an active part in the strike and of being connected with the labour union. Has it been proven that these are not honourable men ? I may say that I have known one of these people, Mr. Leger. for a great many years. Ho was, to my knowledge, a councillor of the town for, I think, twelve or fifteen years. He is a
V

respectable man. He is now a farmer, but for many years was a blacksmith. Mr. Dechene is also a respectable man. Has anything to the contrary been shown concerning these two ? Nothing. 1 must say that I was surprised at the production of one of these affidavits, that of Louis Archam-bault. I think that were the hon. gentleman (Mr. Monk) to state in the town of Valleyfield that this person was held up as being a respectable man in comparison with these other two, he would bo laughed at. The man's character is too well known.
Now. Mr. Speaker. I know it to be a fact that Mr. Leger took no part in my election, at least to my knowledge. So far as I know, none of the members of the union made use of their position in order to influence a vote. But the object of the hon. gentleman who has brought up this matter is very evident, he is smarting under the defeat of his friend, Mr. Bergeron. It is true, a change took place in public opinion, but that change was due entirely to the wise administration of the present government. I may say I know that to be a fact. In the last election parties told me that they had changed their views on account'of their confidence in the present government. But supposing it were true that these strikes had affected the vote in Yaileyfield, how could they have had any influence in the other parishes ? St. Timothge, which has always given a majority in favour of Mr. Bergeron, in the last election gave a majority for me. The hon. member for Jacques Cartier, in a previous speech, remarked that the Minister of Public Works had not judged it prudent to be a candidate in Beau-liarnois in the last election. I may say that it is my belief that had the hon. minister accepted the candidature in Beauharnois he wotihl have been elected by a much larger majority than I received myself. Mention has been made of the fact that the civic authorities were not able at once to settle the strike. Well, it is a well known fact that the mayor of the town, when these difficulties occurred, could not be found, and it was reported that he was shut up in the mill of the Montreal Cotton Company, and was afraid to appear. Was that a position for the mayor of a town to take under such circumstances ? Not at all, he showed his cowardice.
Now, I wish to speak of another person whose name has been mentioned, and that is the recorder of Valleyfield. I believe that there is no man more respected in the town of Valleyfield than the recorder. I know that on several occasions when a difficulty has arisen between the employees and the Montreal Cotton Company, he has been instrumental in settling those difficulties. I do not think the management of the Cotton Company will thank the hon. member for Jacques Cartier for accusing this gentleman of being a party to this strike. Mention
has also been made of a little paper published in Valleyfield called the Salaberry. It has a very limited circulation, and in the town of Valleyfield every one will be surprised that the hon. member should quote it as an authority on any matter. It is a well known fact that it is not responsible for anything it publishes ; had it been so it would have been condemned on numerous occasions for libel. Let me say, in conclusion, that I think the hon. member has failed entirely to support the allegations he made in this House on the 3rd of April.


Robert Franklin Sutherland: I think I might very well leave it to the judgment of this House, without making any remarks of my own, to say whether the hon. member for Jacques Cartier has been able to substantiate the statements he made on the 3rd of April with regard to the Deputy Minister of Labour. I regret that the valuable time of the House should be taken up by representations and remarks regarding Mr. King that are wholly without foundation. They can only injure the party to whom they refer, and can be of no public benefit whatever. It is unfortunate that these little ward politics and local spats should be brought into this House at all. The only subject to which I intend to refer now was the statement made by the hon. member for Jacques Cartier, with reference to the Deputy Minister of Labour. I regretted to observe the sneering way in which the hon. gentleman referred to my evident friendliness to the young man who holds that position. If it is any satisfaction to the hon. gentleman, I may say that at the time he made his remarks I do not think I knew the young man by sight. But I would feel it my' duty, I would consider myself unworthy of the position in which I am acting, if I did not endeavour to see justice and fair-play done to the employees in the department over which I have the honour to preside, no matter how high or how humble they may be. I would remind the hon. gentleman that last session when I had the honour of presiding over a department, I defended from attack in this House a prominent and active member of the staff of that department, who is well known not to be in political sympathy with the government of the day. It was in that spirit alone that I asked the hon. gentleman at the time whether he had any foundation for the statements that he was making. Now, I am going to ask this House and the country to listen to the statement the hon. gentleman made on the 3rd of April :
Mr. King came down to Valleyfield. As I understand It, the function of Mr. King, and his duty under such circumstances, is indicated by a law which we passed last session-G3-64 Victoria, chap. 24, sec. 5 :
' It' shall be the duty of the conciliator to promote conditions favourable to a settlement by endeavouring to allay distrust, to remove

causes of friction, to promote good feeling, to restore confidence, and to encourage the parties to come together and themselves effect a settlement, and also to promote agreements between employers and employees with a view to the submission of differences to conciliation or arbitration before resorting to strikes or lockouts.'
Though that is the duty of Mr. King, under the circumstances, I am credibly informed that he did the very opposite. He became a political agent.
That Is one of the serious statements the hon. gentleman has made.
He met the leading people in Valleyfield and told them the government were prepared [DOT] to [DOT]do a great deal for the success of this strike-
Is it possible that the hon. gentleman on his responsibility had any information upon which to make such' a serious statement as that ?
-but it was all-important that they should support Mr. Loy, who was the Liberal candidate. So, Mr. King became, when there, an active canvasser. The information which I have given to the House as briefly as possible has been .given to me by reliable people. If this statement as to the state of affairs is true, it is clear that the conduct of the parties X have named in connection with the matter is much to be condemned.
Now, I asked the hon. gentleman if he would give any authority for the serious statements he made. lie promised thaf he would, and he says :
I shall be happy to do more than that, and to give affidavits of perfectly responsible men to the effect that the facts as I have stated them are true. I shall give these affidavits in the early part of the week.
Now, I would ask the hon. gentleman himself if he will say that he has submitted one fact or one affidavit in accordance with his statement of that day which proves the statements that he made. I will read the affidavits that he has produced, for fear that at some future time it may be said that affidavits were read in this House proving the statements that were made on the 3rd of April. I shall ask the House to say whether or not there is any justification for the statements which were made in these affidavits :
I, Joseph Cardinal, carter, of the town of De Salaberry of Valleyfield, solemnly declare that in the month of October last, 1900, and during the strike that took place in said town, I transported a man named King, who contended that he was the arbiter appointed by the government to settle the strike, from the Hotel Larocque *to Mr. J. M. Ddchene's and from there to Etienne Leger's, farmer, and president of the labour union. From there I took him to the central Liberal committee room, where the ministerial candidate, Loy, came near my cab and had a pretty long conversation with the said King.
What I submit is, that even if this affidavit were true it does not in any way substantiate the statements made by the hon. gentleman.


Robert Franklin Sutherland: 


Frederick Debartzch Monk: If the hon. gentleman (Mr. Sutherland) asks me the question. 1 will tell him that I consider the position of Mr. King at that moment was such that his going to the place of the strike, visiting only one set of men, going to the Liberal headquarters, and visiting the men of one political persuasion, constituted a political act.


Robert Franklin Sutherland: The hon. gentleman did not confine himself to that statement before, and in the next place I do not believe that Mr. King had any more idea of the politics of these different people that he was seeing than the man in the moon.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I do not say that he had.


Robert Franklin Sutherland: The hon. gentleman knows perfectly well that he had never heard of Louis Bertrand except through an official communication to the department, and under instructions from the minister he went to see this man as secretary of the labour union of that town. He knows that there was no politics in the matter, as far as he was concerned, because these men that went on strike, and who were members of this labour organization, were Conservatives as well as Liberals. Whatever may have been said in regard to the political side of this matter, I do not intend to take up the time of the House in answering, but, I want to submit to the judgment of the House whether this hon. gentleman should not take the very earliest opportunity possible, having made such serious statements, even if he had done it in a hurry at the time, to substantiate or withdraw these statements, but it was not expected that he would come to this House and talk for two hours of something else, trying to draw a herring across the trail, and read affidavits in which Mr. King or his actions are not named, and then say that he lias proved the statements that he made. Now, here is another affidavit upon which he rests his case to prove the most serious charge that he made against Mr. King :
I was present at the meeting of the union where Mr. King addressed the meeting in English, and where Louis Bertrand, the secretary, repeated in French what he said in English. I did not understand all of what was said, although I understand that Mr. King asked if the operatives wanted to go back to work, and on what conditions. The answer was that if the troops were withdrawn they would go back to work.
(Sgd.) DAMASE TESSIER.
Now, i submit that there is uot one word in that affidavit to substantiate the statements made by the hon. gentleman. Ou the contrary, he brings as his own witness his own political friend, as he says here, with an affidavit that goes to prove that Mr. King simply did his duty and nothing more, that he went to the men. that he discussed this matter in a proper way with

the operatives, and that not another thing *was done. All I can say is, that I regret most exceedingly that the hon. gentleman did not do as he promised. 1 cannot understand it. I have appealed to the hon. gentleman on more than one occasion to do justice to this young man in some way or other. If he had been guilty of the conduct that the hon. gentleman said he was guilty of, he would he most blameable, and I would not feel like defending him or keeping him in the position which he holds. Surely it is due to this gentleman that before accusations are made against him there should be some slight tittle of evidence to support them. I stated at the time that this accusation was made that I did not believe there was any justification for it. There should be some evidence to show that Mr. King had conducted himself in the way described by the hon. gentleman, or the hon. gentleman should get up and do him the justice of saying that he had been misinformed. I may say here that I am informed, and I have not the slightest doubt of the truth of it, as the hon. member for Beauharnois stated, that Mr. King did not call upon that hon. gentleman until Tuesday evening, after this thing was all over. That is the call that is referred to in the affidavit of the driver. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Monk), knowing that, sees how dishonest it would be for any person to try to make a case under these conditions. Mr. King, as he knows, did his duty at that time honestly and above-board. He went there, interviewed the company and interviewed the employees. He had no previous knowledge as to who was who. He simply interviewed the officers of the association and the members of the company. Was that not right ? As I have said, he went to the secretary and the president of the labour union, who had referred this matter to the department. I watched the countenances of hon. members opposite while the hon. gentleman was making his statement, and I saw by them that they considered it was unfortunate that he had made a statement in such an unjust and improper way. I felt it my duty to put on record, to some extent, what are the actual facts, and I still appeal to ray hon. friend, if he has any sense of what is due from one gentleman to another, or to a public official, to give us a statement according to the facts as he has them now before him, having had a month or two to have the parties, on whom he was relying to sustain his case, furnish him witli everything they possibly could. He knows how ridiculous it sounds when he reads these affidavits to the House to substantiate the statements that he has made.
I shall read. Mr. Speaker, a statement from the deputy minister, and I am sure that every member of the House will be pleased to hear this statement under the circumstances. It is only due to Mr. King that I should read it to the House :
Province of Ontario, County of Carleton,
To wit :
In the matter of certain charges made against Mr. W. L. Mackenzie King, Deputy Minister of Labour, by Mr. F. D. Monk, M.P. (Jacques Cartier), in the House of Commons, on April 3, 1901.
I, William Lyon Mackenzie King, of the city of Ottawa, in the county of Carleton, Deputy Minister of Labour, do solemnly declare that :
1.	Acting under instructions from the hon. the Minister of Labour, I visited Valleyfield, Que., on the 29th day of October last to endeavour to effect a settlement of the labour difficulties existing between the Montreal Cotton Company and its employees in Valleyfield, Que., at that time.
2.	During the two days I was in Valleyfield I devoted the time to the discharge of my duties as a conciliator. I did not, either directly or indirectly, canvass cr even so much as attempt to influence, any person or persons in Valleyfield on behalf of any candidate in the political elections pending at that time.
3.	The statement made by Mr. F. D. Monk, M.P. (Jacques Cartier, Que.), in the House of Commons on the 3rd day of April inst. to the effect that I became a political agent, is wholly untrue.
Mr. SriiOULE. I rise to a point of order. I wish your ruling, Mr. Speaker, on the point whether it is in order to read in this House a statement from any outsider, deliberately contradicting the statement made by a member in this House.


Mr. SPEAKER.: When a statement is made by an hon. member of a fact which is to his own personal knowledge and with which he is personally connected, we have to accept that statement. But when an lion, member makes a statement as the hon. member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) has done on information supplied him by other parties, that statement may be contradicted. I must draw the attention of the hon. minister to the fact that the word ' untrue ' is certainly going too far.


Robert Franklin Sutherland: There is some little misunderstanding, Mr. Speaker. The hon. member (Mr. Monk) said that these statements were furnished to him and surely I can read an affidavit to contradict them. It is possible that a prominent member of the service can have statements made concerning him by a member in this House- statements which the member does not know of his own knowledge-and that the minister presiding over the department cannot read the statement under oath of his official, contradicting these erroneous statements.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: It would be more regular and more polite, when we have to contradict a statement made by an hon. member to use the word ' incorrect ' instead of * untrue.'


Robert Franklin Sutherland: I have to say that I have not read this affidavit until just now. It continues :


4571
4.	The statement made by Mr. Monk in the House ot Commons on the said 3rd day of April last that I met the leading people in Valleyfleld and told them that the government were prepared to do a great deal for the success of the strike, and that it was all-important that they should support Mr. Loy, who was the Liberal candidate, is wholly untrue both as to the imputation that X represented that the government was interested in the success of the strike and the imputation that I endeavoured to influence any persons in support of Mr. Loy's candidature.
5.	The statement made by Mr. Monk in the blouse of Commons on the said 3rd day of April last, to the effect that I stated to a number of people in Valleyfleld that there wa3 justice in the demand for an increase in wages, and that unquestionably the success of that demand would be greatly assured if everybody would vote for Mr. Loy is wholly untrue.
6.	There was no question of a demand for an increase of wages in the strike of the mill operatives, this strike having been due to the presence of the militia in Valleyfleld, so that the statement that I said to a number of people that there was justice in the demand for an increase in wages, and that unquestionably the success of that demand would be greatly secured If everybody would vote for Mr. Loy, is manifestly false.
7.	The statement made by Mr. Monk in the House of Commons on the said 3rd day of April inst., to the effect that the strike ceased the moment the election was over, is also misleading, as the strike ceased when the assurance was given that the troops would be withdrawn. The men returned to work on the 30th day of October last, and most of the troops were withdrawn on that date. The general election did not take place until the 7th day of November last.
And I make this solemn declaration conscientiously, believing the same to be true, and knowing that it is of the same force and effect as if made under oath and by virtue of the Canada Evidence Act, 1893.
(Sgd.) W. L. MACKENZIE KING.
Declared before me this 13th day of April, A.D. 1901, at the city of Ottawa, in the county of Carleton.
(Sgd.) IX. A. BURBIDGE,
A Notary Public in and for the Province of Ontario.
I suppose that like myself and others who are not lawyers Mr. King probably accepted the language In the affidavit as used by the solicitor who drew it. It might be that language which would not sound so effective to express the meaning could have been used. My hon. friend (Mr. Monk) seemed to think that I was unnecessarily defending the deputy minister. That is not so. The hon. gentleman made a number of most! serious charges and I asked the deputy minister for information. I had no desire to defend him if he were wrong, but I do say that I cannot imagine language strong enough to denounce such conduct as bringing in statements of this kind to the injury of a man's character, if there Is no foundation for them. In this case there was not the semblance of foundation for the statements. I am in the judgment of the House


Robert Franklin Sutherland: when I say that these affidavits are almost too ridiculous to mention as containing any proof of the statements made on the 3rd of April, by the hon. member for Jacques Cartier. 1 regret most sincerely that the hon. gentleman, when he found that he could not produce the evidence that he promised did not make what amends he could to Mr. King. I am pleased indeed, and I am sure that the members of this House will be pleased, that there is not a word of truth in the charges that have been made against Mr. King; and that having been sent there by his minister be acted according to the law, and did his duty and his duty only. That will be a satisfaction to every person who desires to do right in this country.


Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).: I am sure that so far as my friend Mr. Monk is concerned, he will be prepared to accept the statement of Mr. King in the declaration, although the language of that declaration is couched in unnecessarily offensive and insulting terms. It was not at all necessary for Mr. King to characterize any statement made by the hon. member for Jacques Cartier as false or untrue.


Robert Franklin Sutherland: I understand that that expression is applied to the statements furnished to the hon. member (Mr. Monk) and not to any statement made by him. I agree that if the references were to the hon. member himself, the language of the affidavit might have been different.


Robert Laird Borden: My hon. friend might be correct in what he understands about it, but I would not think that the language of the declaration is such as should have been used by a gentleman in Mr. King's position. It would be perfectlv competent for Mr. King to have stated in his declaration : I did not do such a thing ;
I did not perform such au act; I did noc make such a visit. Instead of doing that he has seen fit tq present to the House- and his minister has seen fit to read to the House-a statement in which the words of my hon. friend from Jacques Cartier are characterized over and over again in separate paragraphs of this affidavit as untrue and as false.


The MINISTER OP MARINE AND FISHERIES.: The information given by the hon. gentleman.


Robert Laird Borden: That is not the way in which it is expressed. My hon. friend has his own opinion about it,
I have mine, to which I adhere ; and I think it would have been better, in the interest of Mr. King himself


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: My hon. friend will allow me one moment ?


Robert Laird Borden: My hon. friend will allow me to finish the sentence first.

It would have been better for my hon. friend the acting Postmaster General to have read this affidavit or declaration over before it was submitted to the House, and to have suggested to the Deputy Minister of Labour that the same effect could have been given to the declaration if it had been couched in somewhat different terms.


The MINISTER OP MARINE AND FISHERIES.: I may have misunderstood the declaration or affidavit when it was read ; but if I correctly understood the debate and the reading of the affidavit, it amounted to this. My hon. friend from Jacques Cartier made certain statements in the House-not statements within his own knowledge ; he did not profess to have personal knowledge of them. He stated explicitly that he was making statements of facts which had been imparted to him by those who he thought were reliable parties. The affidavit, as I understood it, simply stated that those statements which the hon. member had made to the House were untrue. That in no way impeaches the veracity of the hon. member for Jacques Cartier. It merely states that the information which he gave to the House was incorrect and untrue.


Robert Laird Borden: I trust that the declaration may bear the meaning which the hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries puts upon it. I did not so understand it, nop did the acting Postmaster General apparently, for he agreed with me that it would have been better if the declaration had been couched in somewhat less offensive terms. To apply the terms untrue and false to statements made by an hon. member of this House-terms which are not permitted to members-does not, in my opinion, tend to elevate the tone of this House.
Now, with respect to the affair at Valley-field, I have very few words to say. It does seem unfortunate that a strike should have been brought about at that particular juncture by the particular means apparently used for that purpose. It does not appear that any one was particularly dissatisfied or that a strike was imminent, or that any one was very much troubled when this gentleman, Mr. Bertrand, saw fit to invoke the aid of the Deputy Minister of Labour. With respect to this Mr. Bertrand, I would like to ask my right hon. friend the leader of the House why he does not apply to him a doctrine which he laid down in this House in 1896 ? It has been stated in a solemn declaration made in this House that this gentleman is an active political leader while at the same time he is an employee of the government. My right hon. friend stated in this House in 1896, and again in 1897. in my hearing, that if any gentleman in the employ of the government desired to devote his time to politics, he would guarantee that he would have the whole
of his time to devote to politics. Why does he not carry out that promise with respect to Mr. Bertrand, and give him the whole of his time to devote to political matters, to which he now devotes so much attention, if the affidavits read in the House to-day are correct. My hon. friend the Minister of Public Works was good enough to lecture my hon. friend from Jacques Cartier with respect to statements made by my hon. friend in this House. I really thought it was most delicious to hear that lecture coming from the hon. Minister of Public Works, especially when I remember that in 1898 he told the House that he desired to be perfectly frank with it in regard to certain statements made in the public press about him, and that he would tell the House how he came to purchase La Pat-rie newspaper

that Mr. Greenshields had certain moneys of the Liberal party in his hands, and that by means of those moneys that paper was purchased. I have here the hon. gentleman's evidence, if he likes to question it, in which it appears that on the witness stand he stated that Mr. Green-shields had not any money of the Liberal party in his hands, and that my hon. friend was not frank to the House, but that Mr. Greenshields had endorsed notes for my hon. friend.


The MINISTER OP PUBLIC WORKS.: That is the old story. I will discuss that with my hon. friend.


Robert Laird Borden: I trust my hon. friend the Minister of Public Works will not get excited. My hon. friend the acting Postmaster General is inclined to be severe upon my hon. friend from Jacques Cartier, because he allowed thirty days, he says, to pass, and has not made an apology to the Deputy Minister of Labour. Well, it is something like four years since my hon. friend the Minister of Public Works made these statements to the House.


The MINISTER OP PUBLIC WORKS.: I said what was true then, and what is true now.


Robert Laird Borden: My hon. friend stated in the House on that occasion that he intended to be frank with the House ; and I have his sworn testimony here in which he said he was not frank with the House.


The MINISTER OP PUBLIC WORKS.: I never said that.


Robert Laird Borden: I will read the evidence :
Q. Do you mean that you were not quite frank in this statement, because you were afraid the Tory press would lie?-A. Yes, they have lied so much about me-not the whole of them, some of them are decent.
Q. Then, the fact that you were not quite frank prevented the Tory press from lying ?-A. No, not to the full effect, I am afraid.

My hon. friend does not take back tbe statement that lie was not frank but lie says it did not produce the desired effect. Now, it really is delightful to hear a lecture from my hon. friend under these circumstances, when four years have elapsed, during which he has not apologized to the House ; and now he cannot apologize, because there is a new parliament-the error of my hon. friend is irreparable ; and yet I have not heard my hon. friend the acting Postmaster General- call attention during those four years to the lamentable default of my hon. friend the Minister of Public Works in not making that very necessary apology to this House. In conclusion, I desire to say that I think it would be well in the public interest if the hon. the acting Postmaster General and Minister of Labour should at some time explain to the House, in the interests of Mr. King,! why it happened that Mr. King, during his sojourn in Valleyfield, consorted only with gentlemen who were active workers in the Liberal cause.


Robert Franklin Sutherland: I would be glad to explain it now. The statement is utterly without foundation. I asked Mr. King, and he states that there is not one word of truth in the statement that he only consorted with Liberals. On the contrary, he never had an interview with any politicians while he was there.


Robert Laird Borden: Can the hon. gentleman state what prominent Conservatives he consorted with ?


Robert Franklin Sutherland: The members of the Cotton Company and the employees of that company were the only persons with whom he consorted while he was there.


Robert Laird Borden: 1 understand that he did make a visit i:i the lirst place to the tailor ; then he saw Mr. Bertrand ; and then he called on my hon. friend the present member for Beauharnois ; and notwithstanding the disclaimer of my hon. friend the acting Postmaster General, I think, under the circumstances in which Mr. King went to Valleyfield, it would have been just as well if he had not visited the committee rooms of either political party ; and I think my hon. friend from Jacques Cartier did not put it at all too strongly to the House when he stated that he thought that was imprudent and injudicious conduct on the part of Mr. King.


Robert Franklin Sutherland: These are not the statements we are finding fault with, but the statements made on the 3rd of April.


The PRIME MINISTER.: Is that all the apology my hon. friend has for the hon. member for Jacques Cartier ?


Robert Laird Borden: Does my right hon. friend want to apologize for his hon. friend behind him ?


Robert Laird Borden: 


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I am quite prepared to discuss that question with my hon. friend at any time, and to prove to him that he has been most unfair, for the first time in this parliament.
At six o'clock, House took recess.
After Recess.
House resumed at eight o'clock.


Mr. RALPH SMITH (Vancouver).: 
Frederick Debartzch Monk: Is this a chartered union ?


Ralph Smith: I have been told that. It is a chartered union under the American Federation of Labour.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Does the hon. gentleman say that the union in Valleyfield is a chartered union ?


Ralph Smith: I understood from these officers that it is.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Has it a charter from the Labour Congress of Canada ?


Ralph Smith: No, it has not a charter direct, but that does not alter the position at all. It is a chartered union all the same. It is not necessary for a union in this country to have a charter from the National Union of Canada in order to be federated with the National Union. It can have its charter from a union altogether outside this country, and yet have a federated connection with the national union of the Dominion. And this is exactly the position of the union at Valleyfield.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Is the hon. gentleman certain that it is incorporated by the American union ?


Ralph Smith: I have that understanding from information given to me, and on which I made the statement. I make it on the strength of the assurance given me by the agent of the American Federated Union of Labour, that it is subject to the jurisdiction of the American Federation of Labour. This is shown by the very affidavits produced. The hon. gentleman will remember that one of the statements made in the affidavit is this ;
That it is contrary to the constitution of the union to talk politics in its meetings, this being even a cause of expulsion from the union.
That makes it evident that this union is officially under a charter, and it is forbidden, under its constitution, to discuss politics.	*
Now, the reason why the hon, member made the statement that this is a Liberal labour union-for that was his statement- is that the officers of that union happened to be Liberals in politics. The labour unions of this country are composed of Liberals and Conservatives. And I desire to say that quite a large percentage of the members of the unions of this country are Liberals, as also are quite a large percentage of the officers. When the hon. gentleman discussed this question, of course he was not aware of that fact. He might go to the Nanaimo union, or any other whose members had pledged themselves individually to take an independent position, but whose officers might be party men in the sense of being either Liberals or Conservatives. That is exactly the fallacy that underlays the hon. gentleman's position when, because the officers of this union, especially the president and secretary, happened to be Liberals. The hon. gentleman, on the strength of that fact, was prepared to state on this floor that this was a Liberal labour union. Now, the statement he made this afternoon has demonstrated clearly that there were members of this union that were Conservatives, for he read statements from men who con-



fess to being Conservatives in polities, who are members of this union. Why does he not conclude that this was a Conservative union because some of the members were Conservatives seeing that he concluded that because some of its officers were Liberals, therefore, it was a Liberal labour union ? Another point, and the principal point, in my opinion, is the charge that the hon. gentleman made against Mr. King. When you consider the every emphatic manner in which the hon. member expressed himself, I do not think that the argument or the evidence he submitted this afternoon, is sufficient to free him from the obligation of settling that matter, so far as Mr. King is concerned. He charged Mr. King with being a partisan, and said he went there to use his influence to advance the interests of the Liberal party. And what was the basis of that charge ? The same as the basis of the charge that this was a Liberal labour union. The hon. gentleman said that Mr. King, when he visited Valleyfield, went to Lib erals. But, he has not stopped to inquire why Mr. King did so. 'Why did he do so ? Because the officials of this labour union were Liberals. The telegram which was sent asking that the Department of Labour should intervene, was signed by the secretary, who was a Liberal, and the president of the union also was a Liberal. Mr. King has told me repeatedly that when he went to Valleyfield he did not know whether these officers of the union were Liberals or Conservatives. Mr. King went to meet the officers of the Valleyfield union, and with the intention of negotiating his business in such a way as to bring about a settlement. This is the basis of the serious charge that the hon. gentleman makes against this very important officer. There are three of these charges that I think it is necessary that the hon. gentleman (Mr. Monk) should be reminded about here. The first is, that Mr. King became a Liberal agent. Did the hon. gentleman prove that this afternoon ? And if he did not prove it, what is he going to do with it ? The charge remains. Mr. King is an honourable gentleman, and perfectly honest in his business, and he wants to be exonerated from that charge. Is the hon. gentleman (Mr. Monk) going to permit a statement of that kind to remain to depreciate the future services of that officer ? I consider it very important that the hon. gentleman should either give some evidence to support his bold and strong statement or he ought to be able to settle it in an honourable way. The second charge was, that Mr. King became, while there, an active canvasser. Now, that goes very much further than the previous statement. This does not mean that Mr. King associated himself with Liberals, but that he used the time of this government and put forth special efforts to make men who were Conservatives into Liberals. Did the hon. gentleman seek to prove that this afternoon, or did he. Mr. SMITH (Vancouver).
give any reason why this House should believe that Mr. King did in any sense become a canvasser ? If not, what is he going to do with it ? Is he going to permit the matter to rest there ? Now, the hon. member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) also said : ' I shall be happy to do more than that '-that is, more than the acting Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Sutherland) thought he should say-' and to give affidavits of perfectly responsible men, to the effect that the facts, as I have stated them, are true.' Now, did the affidavits given by the hon. gentleman this afternoon prove anything of the kind ? Did they prove that Mr. King had said to these men that they were to do what they could for Mr. Loy, and this matter would be settled to their advantage ? Did they prove that Mr. King had become a political agent ? Did they prove that Mr. King had become a canvasser in the interests of the Liberal party? I submit that there was not a single syllable in the affidavits to prove in the least any of these things against Mr. King. If that is so, what is the hon. gentleman proposing to do with it ?
That is my simple explanation of this case. I believe that the Deputy Minister of Labour, when he was invited by the officials of this union to go to Valleyfield, went there to try to effect a settlement under the Act, which, I am glad to think, is going to be a source of good to this country. He went not knowing whether these men were Liberals or Conservatives. But, if an hon. member of this House is prepared to put the leading official of this important department in the position of being boldly accused on the floor of this House of being a politician instead of being a real servant of the people, I submit, the effect will be to lower the influence of that officer's position. Now, surely I shall not be considered a strong partisan because I take that position. That is a position that I would take in favour of the friends of hon. gentlemen opposite. The hon. member for Jacques Cartier this afternoon spoke of the dismissal of civil servants by this government.
I am not in a position to say whether the hon. gentleman's facts are correct or not. But, 1 am prepared to say this-that if it comes to my knowledge that any officer in the employ of this government, who has not taken an extremely strong political party stand, is discharged on political grounds, I will join hands with the hon. gentleman in defending that servant.
I do not consider that an employee of this government who does his duty and who goes quietly to the poll and casts his vote for whoever he likes, ought to be discriminated against because of that action. I do not expect there is any party in this country that wants to take such a position as that. But as I said before, if the facts are as the hon. gentleman has stated, and if employees of this government have com-
4581.

mitted the offence that he has charged, I am as ready as he is to condemn it. But on the other hand, if the officers of this government do their duty honestly and fairly outside of politics, then I say the hon. gentleman ought to do his part to make a success of the service those officers are called upon to render. The hon. gentleman did make a statement on the floor of this House, he did charge that officer with putting himself into a indefensible position. Although he has produced this afternoon a large amount of evidence in support of his charge, still I consider that he has not proved his charge, and I say that he ought to be very careful how he attacks a gentleman holding the position of Deputy Minister of Labour and thereby puts an obstacle in the way of his rendering to the labouring classes the service which he was appointed to perform. I think the hon. gentleman will not dishonour himself if he rises in the House and admits that he was misinformed to a considerable extent with regard to Mr. King's action in Valleyfield.


Mr. H. J. LOGAN (Cumberland).: I think everybody in this House is of the opinion by this time that the hon. member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) should consider it his duty, not only as a member of parliament, but as a gentleman, to rise in his place and to express his regret that he made these statements with reference to Mr. King. So far, however, the hon. gentleman has not seen fit to do so. On the 3rd of April, over a month ago, he made these statements, for which he was called to task by the hon. member for North Oxford (Hon. Mr. Sutherland) :
I shall he happy to do more than that

That is, more than to find out the correctness of the charge.
-and to give affidavits of perfectly responsible men to the effect that the facts as I have stated them are true. I shall give these affidavits in the early part of next week. I have no personal knowledge of the facts, but would not have made the statement without having the information on which I could rely.
Pie says he will give affidavits to the effect that the facts as he has stated them are true. What were the facts that he stated ? First, that Mr. King, the Deputy Minister of Labour became a political agent; secondly, that Mr. King stated to the men in' Valleyfield that it was important that they should support Mr. Loy who was the Liberal candidate. So Mr. King became an active canvasser. The hon. gentleman did not produce his affidavits the succeeding week, but after more than a month has passed he comes forward with a few affidavits. I do not know whether they are made by responsible men or not, but we will grant they are, and what do they say ? How far do they prove his charges that Mr. King became a political agent ? I have, here a translation of the affidavits :
144*	|
I was present at the meeting of the union where Mr. King addressed the meeting in English, and where Mr. Louis Bertrand, the secretary, repeated in French what he said in English; that I did not understand all what was said, although I understood that Mr. King had asked if the operatives wanted to go back to work, and at what conditions. The answer was that if the troops were withdrawn they would go back to work.
(Sgd.) DAMASE TESSIER.
Is there any truth in that statutory declaration that Mr. King, the Deputy Minister of Labour, took an active part in that election, and became a political agent, canvassing for Mr. Loy ? Take now the affidavit of Mr. Cardinal :
I, Joseph Cardinal, carter, of the town of Salaberry de Valleyfield, solemnly declare that in the month of October last (1900) during the strike that took place in said town, I had transported a man named King, who pretended that he was the arbiter appointed by the government to settle the strike, from the Hotel Larocque (Larocque House), to M. J. M. Ddchdne's, and from there to Etienne Leger's, farmer, and president of the L'Union Ouvribre. From there I took him to the central Liberal committee, where the ministerial candidate, Loy, came near my cab and had pretty long conversation with the said King.
(Sgd.) JOSEPH CARDINAL.
I know not who drew up these affidavits, but the circumstance that that carter relates did not take place during the settlement of the strike, but after the strike was settled and just previous to Mr. King leaving Valleyfield. He did not drive Mr. King, as I understand it. Mr. King came to Valleyfield on Monday, he was there all day Monday, he was there Monday night, he was there all day Tuesday. If he was an active political agent, you would not sup-nose lie would have been there for that length of time and never have seen Mr. Loy, the ministerial candidate. It was not until Tuesday night, after the strike was settled, that in driving down past the committee room, he sent the carter in to Mr. Loy to ask if Mr. Loy was there, simply to pay his respects to Mr. Loy. He did not go into the committee room. I am instructed by Mr. King that he did not go into the committee room, but that Mr. Loy came out to his cab and passed the time of day with him, and Mr. King drove on. That was all the connection he had with Mr. Loy at Valleyfield at all. Now, Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman who is the leader of the Conservative party from the province of Quebec, and who, while we do not agree with him politically, we have always regarded as a gentleman of gentlemen. surely he does not consider that he owes no apology to this gentleman, to this young man who is deputy minister of an important department in this country, a department which deals with the great question of labour, which is the greatest of all questions in this country-surely he must

feel it his duty to get up in this House and apologize to this gentleman for having made a statement which he has not produced one jot or tittle of evidence to prove. Mr. Speaker, the Department of Labour should be beyond all political considerations. We should endeavour to teach the labour organizations of Canada from one end of it to the other that this department is the one department of government which is uninfluenced by politics; and when a strike takes place, when a struggle between capital and labour is precipitated, the labouring men should be carefully instructed that they can depend upon that department to do its duty irrespective of all political considerations. But how far can we expect the labouring men of this country to trust in the Department of Labour if an hon. gentleman, the leader of the Liberal-Conservative party of one of our great provinces, is to get up and charge the deputy minister of that department with being a political partisan who went down on this occasion and canvassed as an agent in behalf of one of the candidates in a constituency of this country ? Sir, I for one trust that for the sake of this department, for the sake of the future settlement of labour struggles, and for the hon. gentleman's own sake, he will get up in this House before this debate closes and state frankly, as a man and as a gentleman, that while he made this statement in good faith, while it was all bona fide with him, still he had been misinformed, and admits that the affidavits do not justify the statements he made. Sir, X happen to be the representative of a large labouring class in my own constituency, and I know what friction between capital and labour means, and I know how important it is that this Department of Labour should be considered above all political considerations. Therefore it is that I earnestly invite the hon. gentleman, for the sake of the success of this department in settling labouring disputes in this country, to withdraw the statement he has made in regard to the head of that department.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I would like to ask the hon. gentleman if he has ever visited the county of Beauharnois.


Hance James Logan: I have been in the county of Beauharnois.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Well, it seems to me that the hon. gentleman knows about as much of the situation in the town of Valleyfield as I know about the county of Cumberland.


Hance James Logan: It is not a question of the knowledge of any constituency in this country, but it is a question of what constitutes a gentleman in this House.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House went into Committee of Supply.
Hance James Logan: Ocean and River Service, $36,500.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES (Hon. Sir Louis Davies).: Mr. Chairman, when the main estimates were going through I told the committee that we would have the usual votes in the supplementary estimates for the repairs to the different government steamers. The amount is $36,000, which is divided as follows : For the Druid, the steamer that was at Quebec and which was used for the buoy and light service below Quebec, machinery and hull $3,000. She is a very old vessel and we had to dispose of her this spring altogether as ' being useless. The Lansdowne, the steamer on the Bay of Fundy, machinery and hull $4,000 and for a new deck $2,000, making $6,000. The Minto, the new winter steamer running between Prince Edward Island and the mainland ; the engine required some repairs and the steamer required re-riveting which was done at Pictou last fall and cost $8,000 and for slippage, the charge for putting her on the slip $4,000, making $12,000. For the Stanley the other steel steamship that is on the winter service, repairs to machinery $3,800, new donkey engine $1,600. The Aberdeen, engaged in the buoy and light service at Quebec, repairs to machinery and new forecastle in the forward part of the ship $9,600, making a total of $36,000. It has been customary to put these special repairs to the different ships in a special vote and explain them to the committee.


Robert Laird Borden: The hon. gentleman's explanation does not correspond with the vote. The Druid is mentioned in it but the Stanley is not.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: That is a mistake in verbiage.
I thank my hon. friend for calling my attention to it. The word Stanley ought to be put into the vote making it read.
To provide for repairs to government steamers Lansdowne, Minto, Aberdeen, Stanley and Druid.
The other part of the vote is $500 towards the maintenance of Seal Island life saving station.


Robert Laird Borden: Why does that not appear in the main estimates ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: In the last two or three years the department tried to defray that small expenditure without a special vote. The accountant says in his memo, to me that we used to have a special vote for the life saving station at Seal Island. But some years ago this vote was included in the item for saving life and life saving stations, but we cannot pay the expense of that station out of that vote. The cost of the salaries at Seal Island is $850, and he says that with $500 we will be able to meet the expense.


Mr. BENNETT.: May I ask the hon. minister who is in charge of the boat patrol on

the upper lakes and who is the next officer! to the captain ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: Captain Dunn is in charge. There has been no change made.
Lighthouse and Coast Service, $33,000.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: Thirty thousand dollars of this is for improvements to aids to navigation in the St. Lawrence river. That sum of course will be only a small part of the (sum we will expend during the coming-season and in the supplementary estimates next year there will be a very much larger vote than this. This will be the sum we will expend during the two months of May and June for additional buoys, gas buoys and improvements to the beacons and lighthouses. I need not go into a further explanation because when I come down to ask for $70,000 or $80,000 additional for improvements for Belle Isle up I will have to go info details as to the lighthouses that we shall expend that money upon. This is just for the general improvement service, putting down improved buoys, and beacons on the River St. Lawrence :
Mr. SPIiuOTJLE. I would like to know, in view of the answer the hon. minister gave to the captains navigating thk St. Lawrence that everything had been done that it was desirable to do, why this amount will be. required.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: That is a very fair question to ask. I think I explained that while the service was fairly effective, and while, in so far as I could gather, it is good, still there were complaints made by the entire shipping trade of Montreal, and that notwithstanding the statements made to me, my hon. friend knows that a very large volume of evidence has been collected by the shipping trade of Montreal to the effect that the service can be largely improved. I would prefer to discuss the question when the supplementary estimates come down. On Belle Isle itself we have a.large lighthouse and one of the best sirens in America. But, a large number of the captains contend that on the northeast corner of the island, where the Scotsman [DOT]was wrecked, there ought to be another lighthouse and siren. The chief engineer of my department, by whose advice I am guided, has contended for years that there ought not to be one there and that it will do more harm than good. A very large number, I might almost say all the shipping owners, took a different view from him, and he has yielded, and as a consequence, I will ask for a vote for that. The vessels now engaged in the navigation of the St. Lawrence are very much larger in size than they used to be, and the value of the vessels and cargo has doubled and trebled of late years. The larger size
of the vessels makes the danger greater, and it is our duty to place the buoys and lights in the St. Lawrence in the most effective condition money can put them in, in view of the enormous quantity of shipping that passes up and down that river. I need not'say that not being an expert myself, I am guided largely by the advice of my officer. There is no use disguising the fact, that some portions of the St. Lawrence river are somewhat dangerous. We have built a permanent light at the Upper Traverse costing $50,000, and we propose to build another at the Lower Traverse which will cost about $70,000. The tide runs there seven or eight knots an hour; it is a narrow channel and cannot be lighted too well. I propose to submit an expenditure of money to the House which I think will place the light and buoy service of the St. Lawrence in a position at least equal to similar services in the United States and Great Britain. Some of the lights are excellent, but they are not as strong and distinctive as possibly can be purchased, and we intend to improve them. That is the only explanation I can give.


Mr. SPROULE.: That is satisfactory, and I am glad the minister gave the explanation, because there seemed to be a conflict of opinion between him and the vessel-owners. The minister made a very emphatic statement in the Railway Committee, when the Lloyds insurance Bill was up, and he quoted the opinion of sea captains-


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: I made the statement on the floor of the House.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Yes. Of course, we gave due weight to the statement the minister so emphatically made, but it was hard to reconcile it with the pamphlet distributed to the members of parliament. It is very proper for the minister to admit that there is need for improvement.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: Not only that, but I shall have to specify in detail the particular improvements when the supplementaries come down.


Robert Laird Borden: This vote, and the vote which the minister proposes to ask in the supplementaries will probably be considered as superceding the evidence of the four captains of whom we have heard so much.
The	MINISTER	OF	MARINE	ANDFISHERIES. Yes,	if my	hon. friend	takes
that view of it.
Mr.	BENNETT.	Has	an appointment
been made to the western lighthouse on the Georgian Bay, and if so, who has been appointed ? A man named Smith was the occupant, but he resigned.
The	MINISTER	OF	MARINE	AND
FISHERIES. I know of no appointment,

and my officers know of none, but I will make a note of the question.
Fisheries-Additional salaries and disbursements of fishery inspectors, overseers and guardians, $45,pOO.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: We usually ask $15,000 of this sum in the supplementary vote. I do not know why the votes are divided between the main estimates and the supple-mentaries, but it has gone on in that groove, and it is done from year to year. I learned from the accountant a short time ago that for years past it has been the practice to allow the accounts for one year to overlap the next, and I have determined to put it on a business basis, so that we will take sufficient money to pay for the year's expenditure. It will take $15,000 to remedy this improper system of book-keeping. Another $15,000 is caused by the increased expenditure in British Columbia and the Yukon. We have appointed fishery inspectors and overseers in the Yukon, and as the fisheries of British Columbia have largely increased, they require increased exr penditure. We receive some $50,000 from British Columbia, and the expenditure is much below that. It is deemed desirable that many of the British Columbia rivers should be better protected than formerly. We have had to employ one or two steam vessels to protect the fisheries at the mouth of the Fraser river. There is an extra sum required for the lobster protection service in the maritime provinces. The lobster fishery is in rather a critical condition, and the fishermen are apt to press upon the close season and fish at times when the results would be disastrous to the fisheries. We have had to employ several extra steam tugs in the maritime provinces.


Mr. MACLEAN.: In view of the statement made by the Minister of Marine. I would like to ask the Minister of Finance how many other departments are backward in their book-keeping, and pay their accounts of last year out of this year's vote ? I believe the Postmaster General has reorganized his department and the Minister of Marine his; and I wish to know from the Minister of Finance how many other departments need reorganization ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: The small accounts that remain unpaid in the various departments are not brought to the notice of the Minister of Finance. My hon. friend Mr. Maclean should be glad to know that we are remedying these loose methods which we have inherited from past generations, and that this is an age of reform.


William Findlay Maclean: The Minister of Finance should have an oversight of the book-keeping of all the departments; and if he finds any of them lacking he should bring them up to the mark.


Sir LOUIS DAVIES.: 


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I am a very willing worker, but I would not undertake to go over the whole Dominion of Canada and find out everybody who had an unpaid claim against the Marine and Fisheries Department at the end of the year.


Robert Laird Borden: I wish to mention to the hon. Minister of Marine and
Fisheries that a representation has been made to me with regard to the necessity of an overseer on the Quoddy river, in the county of Halifax, for the coming season. It appears that in 1894-95, about 100,000 young salmon were put into the river, and they are now reaching a good size ; and complaint is made, with what degree of truth I, of course, do not know, that the approaches to the river are obstructed with nets, so that the fish cannot get up the river. It is represented to me that it is very desirable that some competent person, on whom reliance could be placed, should be appointed, to act as overseer on the river during the coming season.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: I shall be very happy to make a note of the hon. gentleman's remarks, and apply to my officers for a statement respecting the matter.
Additional amount required for two fish hatcheries in British Columbia and a combined salmon and lobster hatchery in Gaspg, $10,500.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: Hon. members know that we are building a combined salmon and lobster hatchery in GaspA and a salmon hatchery at Sicamous, on the Fraser river ; and this additional vote is required to complete them.


Mr.   MONIC@: Where is the Gaspg establishment ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: The name of the place is Le-Boutellier Cove.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I see by a British Columbia newspaper that the provincial government is taking up the question of building hatcheries. Is there any conflict of jurisdiction on this subject between the Dominion and the province ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: The hon. gentleman knows that we have not yet finally and definitely settled the question which has arisen out of the celebrated decision given by the Privy Council in the fisheries case, that is, the exact point where the jurisdiction of the Dominion ends and the jurisdiction of the province begins. It has been settled satisfactorily that the rivers and lakes are the property of the provincial government, and carry the property in the fish, and they alone have the right to license the exclusive locations to fishermen in those lakes and rivers. But when you come to the sea-coast a different question arises* and we

have been endeavouring to arrange a case with the maritime provinces and Quebec for submission to the Privy Council, to find out just where the jurisdiction of the province ends and the jurisdiction of the Dominion begins. Onr contention is that the jurisdiction of the province ends and the jurisdiction of the Dominion begins at low-water mark. There is in that sense a conflict of jurisdiction ; but there is no active conflict. We have so far carried on our fishing business and enforced our regulations in British Columbia without any opposition whatever from the British Columbia government.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: This paper states that the local government propose to establish two fish hatcheries on the Fraser river, at a cost of $7,000 each. I understand that this vote is to establish a fish hatchery ou the same river ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: To complete it. We have had a fish hatchery on the Fraser river, at New Westminster, for many years ; but it became old and obsolete, and at the request of the members from British Columbia, we took a vote to build a new one further up the river. It is quite possible that the provincial government may supplement our efforts in that direction by building hatcheries of their own. Of course, we could not and would not prevent that.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: It is evident that both the Dominion and the provincial governments are engaging in the same work. I am not objecting to that ; but, I want to use it as a precedent, and ask the minister if he would not do the same act of kindness towards us in the Georgian Bay district, where most of the ova for whitefish and salmon-trout have been collected for years, and where there are excellent facilities, say on the Beaver river, for establishing a fish hatchery in the very locality where the ova are collected. I have brought this matter before the House repeatedly during the last twenty years, but I have never yet been able to induce the government to take it up. If the minister can justify this expenditure in British Columbia, where the local government are doing it for themselves, surely he ought to go further and do it in the other provinces as well. If he does that, there is no place better entitled to it than the Georgian Bay district, where the ova are collected and brought down here to be hatched out.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: I think there is a great deal in what my hon. friend says. The matter has been under consideration, and favourable consideration ; and I am strongly impressed with the desirability of doing what he suggests ; but he knows how difficult it is to get all you apply for in council. I am personally in favour of building a fish hatchery on the Georgian Bay. I think it is the
proper place for one. I have always thought it was unfortunate that the hatchery was placed at Newcastle by the late Mr. W'ilmot. I think it is the wrong place. So far as I am concerned, if a new hatchery is to be built in Ontario, it will be built in the Georgian Bay. That is my opinion, and the opinion of the officers of my department. It is my intention this year to propose a vote for a biological fish laboratory in the Georgian Bay for the study of fish life. The fish life of the Georgian Bay is one of the most valuable we have in Canada, and we know very little of the habits of the fish living in those waters. The suggestion which the hon. gentleman makes, I frankly say, has my sympathy, and I hope it will be carried out; but he knows I cannot get all I want to get.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I hope the hon. minister's efforts in convincing his colleagues will be successful. I am sure the people in that district would appreciate it very much.


Mr. HACKETT.: May I ask on what principle the hon. minister is working this combined lobster and salmon hatchery in GaspS? Will he take the different fish in different seasons, and utilize the one hatchery for hatching out both kinds of fish-the salmon in the fall and the lobsters in the spring and summer ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: Yes.


Edward Hackett: I think it is a capital idea.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: Mr. Prince, the commissioner of fisheries, has worked it out pretty thoroughly, and I believe it will be a grand success.


Mr. MCCARTHY.: Will the hon. gentleman be able to do anything towards that fishery he speaks of in the Georgian Bay ? I have had a request from Prof. Louden and those associated with him in the formation of a club at the mouth of the Pene-tanguishene. They are very anxious to get a small grant for the purpose of establishing a hatchery such as the hon. gentleman has been speaking of.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: I think I can give my hon. friend the assurance that that will be done, but as the estimates are not down I cannot speak positively.


Edward Hackett: I would call the hon. gentleman's attention to the fact that we had a salmon hatchery on Prince Edward Island a few years ago, which was unfortunately burned down. The government still hold the site of that hatchery, which proved to be a great success. In view of the fact that the lobster fishery is one of great importance around the coast, I trust that the hon. minister, if he cannot do anything this

session, will see his way next session to build on that site a general hatchery such as he proposes to build at Gasp6. If the site be too far up the river, it might be moved further down where he would have fresh and salt water.
Department of Agriculture-Salaries, $330.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: The first increase is not a statutory increase, but an indemnity given to Mr. Jarvis, secretary of the department, who has had to do the work of the deputy as well as his own, the deputy having unfortunately been ill. I thought it only fair to allow Mr. Jarvis some recognition for his work.
Experimental Fai;ms, $1,500.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: This is due to a larger distribution of the bulletins and reports. Prof. Saunders says he has now three bulletins ready to issue which ought to be in the hands of the farmers.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: What are those bulletins ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: One is on the cultivation of the apple, now ready for the printer. One is about clover and its value as a fertilizer, and one is on soft pork.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Is there any regular system for the bringing out and distribution of these bulletins ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: They are issued whenever the experiments of the farm have reached a point to justify conclusions being drawn. The bulletins are the accumulated results of these experiments, brought together and worked out by an officer in charge of the experiments, and are the opinion and judgment of that officer supervised by the director.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: How many are distributed, and to whom ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: The mail list of farmers comprises some 50,000. Some bulletins are of general application and go out to the whole of the mail list, while some go only to specialists. For instance, we have a list of horticulturists and orchardists, and the orchard bulletin would go only to these and probably to the farmers in the fruit-growing districts, but not to the whole 50,000 on the mailing list. The bulletin with regard to the raising of soft pork would go to all.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: How are the lists made up ? Some years ago, I understand, the mailing list consisted of members of farmers' institutes, in addition to such names as have been handed in by the member for the district. But I do not know whether they were continued year after year regardless of whether these people continued to be members of institutes or not. On one occasion the members of the House revised Mr. HACKETT.
the lists for their several constituencies, but that seems to be done only once in a great many years. Is the same system kept up now, or from what source are the names drawn to fill the lists from time to time ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: The lists are chiefly filled up from two sources. The first of these is the correspondence received at the farm. We have many applications from all parts of the country for information of various kinds, and the writers generally ask to be put upon the mailing lists, which is done. Then, members of the House recommend names to be put upon the mailing list. We find that the list must be gone over because men move, and their post offices are no longer correct, some die, and so on-there is a constant slight revision of that kind. I think that once since I came into office we have had a complete revision of the mailing list, each county list being gone over and corrected.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I thought it was before the hon. gentleman came into office that that revision was made. The lists were revised a great many years ago, each member of the House revising the list for his own constituency. Many of us found on the list names of men who had died or moved away ten or twelve years before. The lists were very imperfect, and thus a great deal of the literature was thrown away. I would suggest a revision of the lists every few years, and it seems to me that the method that I have suggested is the most effective. We were told that we might send in a number of names-I think it was 200 from each constituency. I think that that ought to be enlarged and that members ought to have the privilege from year to year of adding to that list, and of revising the list every few years.


Mr. SMITH (Wentworth).: It seems to me that the system of distribution is very uncertain and that a minimum of good is gained by the distribution made. The cost of the experimental farm seems to be about $80,000 a year, while the cost of distribution is about $4,000 a year. This distribution reaches about 50,000, or about one-tenth of the farmers of the country. Seeing that the farm costs so much, it seems to me that it would be more economical to increase the distribution. If the information gained as the result of the $80,000 of expenditure is a good thing for 50,000 farmers, it would be a good thing for 50,000 more. I think the distribution should be more extensive if it is a good thing to gain and distribute this valuable information to 50,000 farmers at an expense of $84,000, surely it would be a good thing to distribute the same information to another 50,000 farmers at an expense of only $4,000 or so, and so on until all of the 50,000 farmers of Canada received the same information that this favoured few

received now. It may be that those who receive them now are among the most progressive farmers-that depends upon how the names are obtained, to whom these bulletins are sent; but surely the 45,000 farmers who do not receive these bulletins now and to whom they might be sent at an expense less than the present cost of gaining and distributing the information to less than 50,000 would receive in the aggregate much more information and the country would be benefited to a much greater extent for this additional expenditure than it is by that now made.


The MINISTER OP AGRICULTURE.: It is well understood, and has been published over and over again all over the country, that anybody who applies for this literature will have his name placed upon the list and will receive it. The number of names on the list is really the number of those who apply. The fact that any one may receive this literature has been announced at all sorts of agricultural meetings, it has been advertised over and over again not only in the agricultural press, but in the weekly press and in many other ways. I do not mean that we put in paid advertisements, but I mean that the fact is constanly referred to in articles, editorials and communications which are sent to the newspapers. The result of that widespread advertisement is that about 50,000 have applied. If 50,000 more would apply, the literature would be sent to them-but in that case, of course, I should be obliged to ask for more money. The list has varied a little year by year, and names have been changed, but the list has kept at about the same size. I do not think that there is anybody who wants this literature who does not receive it. I would be very glad indeed if more people would ask for it.


Ernest D'Israeli Smith: Are there any records kept of how many of the 50,000 have applied in their own names ? Are there not a large number sent in by friends, by members of parliament, and so on ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: None of this literature is sent out by members of parliament, it is all sent out from the farm.


Ernest D'Israeli Smith: I did not mean that-I meant sent at the request of members of parliament and others.


The MINISTER OP AGRICULTURE.: Yes; if a member of parliament sends in a reasonable number of names-and I have never fixed a limit-these names would certainly be put upon the list. This is being done constantly. Members every now and again ask to see the lists for their own counties and correct and add to them.


Mr. ROBINSON (Elgin).: Has the hon. minister any literature ready for distribution now ?


The MINISTER. OP AGRICULTURE.: I think there are two bulletins now in the press. But I would like the hon. gentleman to understand that this literature goes from the farm direct, and is not sent to the members of the House for distribution. If the hon. member wants it sent to people in his own county he should send in a list, and the documents will be sent to the people he names.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Can the hon. minister give us what percentage of those on the list receive the farm report of the Minister of Agriculture and the report of experimental farms ? As I understand it, some years ago an arrangement was made between the Dominion Minister of Agriculture and the provincial Minister of Agriculture that those belonging to farmers' institutes were to receive a copy of the farm report or the farm bulletins. Does he know what percentage of these will receive the farm report ?


The MINISTER OP AGRICULTURE.: We do not accept the names of members of any associations of that kind; that is, we do* not take the list of names sent in by a secretary. The farmers' institutes grew to such large proportions that it was practically impossible to do it. Besides, the institutes' membership changed greatly every year. If such an arrangement as the hon. gentleman speaks of was carried out some years ago, and I dare say it was, it had fallen to the ground before I came into office.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Then you do not distribute any of these to them ?


The MINISTER OP AGRICULTURE.: No, not as members of farmers' institutes.


William Findlay Maclean: Could the minister inform the committee whether he has noticed substantial results from the distribution of these bulletins and other literature of this kind ?


The MINISTER OP AGRICULTURE.: Yes, I think the distribution of this information from the experimental farm has largely aided the development and progress of agriculture, because an immense mass of the most valuable information is thus brought to the notice of the farmers. It does not affect only those who read it; they put it into practice to a certain extent, though not as much as they might do, but still to a certain extent, wherever such work is put into practice, it acts as an object lesson to the surrounding country.


William Findlay Maclean: The evidence of all that comes back to you ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Yes.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: In this connection I want to refer again to a recommendation that was made by the committee at the beginning of this session, that a certain

number of copies containing tbe evidence of each of tbe experimental farm bands should be furnished the members to be given out during the session or mailed directly to the farmers, so that they might get it during the current season, evidence on various lines. When that recommendation went out from the committee I drew attention to the fact that in years gone by we found it difficult to get this information in time for the members to distribute it during the session. We can do it then much more easily than we can at home, because we can send it from this House free and without trouble. As yet we have no information that any of these reports have been got out this session. We are drawing near the end of the session, and I am afraid as usual that they may not be received until we have gone home. Now, if they are sent home to us, I have no doubt many members will do in the future as in the past, leave it at their homes during the summer and have it sent back here by mail the next session to be distributed. But in doing that we lose the benefit of having these reports get early into the hands of the farmers containing the information that is useful to them. I would like to suggest to the hon. Minister that he stir up the Printing Bureau to get these reports out at once so that we may distribute them while we are here.


Mr. HOLMES.: I may perhaps be able to make a little explanation. I happen to be connected with the committee that had to deal with that very matter this session. With the congested state of the Printing Bureau-and anybody who knows anything about printing will know that the Bureau has been much congested-it is absolutely impossible to get out all the reports of parliament while the House is sitting. We have had that matter brought to the attention of the Printing Committee two or three sessions. The Printing Committee has endeavoured to facilitate the issuing of the reports in matters of that kind for the convenience of the House as well as the members, but we found it impossible practically to get all the reports printed in order that the members might avail themselves of the facility of mailing them from the House during the session.
I do not think it is possible to accomplish that under the existing state of affairs at the Bureau. I see there is an item on the paper calling for a grant towards the King's Printer for printing, but it seems to me the only remedy for that difficulty will be to put a large item in the estimates for the enlargement of the Printing Bureau. When that matter comes up I shall have something to say about it. But that is the only remedy, because under existing circumstances the staff of hands at the Bureau cannot be increased, there is a lack of accommodation in the building, the rooms are crowded to the utmost, and a great many Mr. SPROULE.
of the reports that ought to have been out have not yet been issued. That is due to the fact that we have not room in the Bureau to put on an extra staff of hands.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Does the minister know whether these reports can be mailed from our homes free of postage ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Certainly they can.


Ernest D'Israeli Smith: I would ask the minister if any appropriation is being made for an experimental fruit farm, either in the Niagara district or anywhere else ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: My hon. friend, I am sure, has already heard of the many requests we have had for branch experimental farms from all parts of the country. I regret to say that there are so many that it would be impossible to satisfy the demands. I think a different system will have to be adopted so as to bring a little more of the experimental work-or of the illustration work, I would prefer to call it-home to the different parts of the country. But to start a larger number of experimental farms than we have now I think would not be possible.


Ernest D'Israeli Smith: It seems to me the fruit-growing industry deserves the same recognition at the hands of the government as the agricultural industry. Perhaps the fruit industry requires a larger amount of expenditure to make proper experiments than even the farming industry. We have four experimental farms scattered over different parts of the Dominion in different climates, and representing the products of those climates fairly well; but there are none of these farms where experiments can be conducted in regard to fruit that would be of any use to the larger fruit-growing sections. Experiments in fruit are conducted at these farms, it is true, but they are only useful to the northern sections of the Dominion where little fruit is grown. They serve their puipose certainly, I do not wish to detract from the value of these experiments. But there is a much wider field for experiments in fruit-growing that can only be conducted on an experimental farm in a fruit district, either in the Niagara district or somewhere else where fruit is grown on a large scale. We have an example at the present time of the great need of these experiments. We have found that though our fruit is improving from year to year, but on account of our climate and our soil, we cannot export this fruit to a long distance market satisfactorily. People often wonder why the California fruits are shipped here. They see long articles in the Winnipeg and other papers blaming the Ontario fruit packers for the way they pack their fruit. If they only had as much sense as the California

packers, they say, why, they could carry their fruit to long distance markets without trouble. But the fault is not in the packing. There are just as good packers in Ontario as there are in California, and they do their packing just as well, but the climate and soil are of such a character that the fruit will not carry long distances, no matter how hard it is packed, no matter how well it is packed, it will not carry to long distance markets satisfactorily. But there are some varieties of fruit that will carry. I have found in my experience in peaches that there are one or two splendid varieties that will carry to the Northwest Territories or to Europe with every success, they will carry as well as apples. The Elberta variety is one, the Smock is another. The Elberta is one of the finest peaches grown, but they only last a few days. We want a succession of varieties like that, and with experimental fruitgrowing carried on where tests can be made of the different varieties, we would no doubt be able to find out some varieties that would meet the requirements and we would thus be able to secure that splendid Manitoba market Which is perhaps of more use to us, as some gentlemen have said than even the British market, especially for our perishable products. That market is growing at a tremendous rate from year to year, and will absorb all that we can give them in good condition, nearly all the fruit grown in the fruit districts of Ontario. But with the present varieties we cannot do it, except occasionally. The year before last we could ship our plums even as far as Moosomin and Moosejaw, but the next year we couldn't ship them to Winnipeg at all. But if we had the requisite varieties of plums and of peaches we could have shipped them with perfect success. That is one example of the manner an experimental fruit farm would be of great value to the fruit-growers of this country. Fruit-growing is probably one of the main industries of the country, it is worth at . least $15,000,000 a year, equal to the wheat product, equal at least to our export of wheat, and equal'to many of the leading lines of agricultural products that are exported from this country. Year after year it has grown and with proper encouragement, even in a matter of this kind which does not cost very much, it will continue to grow to an enormous extent. I believe we will find, if we are going to ship many of our fruits with success to Europe, that we must learn how to meet the changed conditions. Individuals will find this out in time. It will take many years, but an experimental farm could do it quickly and economically as compared with individual effort. The same argument that applies regarding the usefulness of the experimental farms at Ottawa, in the North-west Territories and in Nova Scotia applies with equal
force to a fruit station which ought to be established in the fruit district.


The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Flint).: Carried.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Is the hon. minister not disposed to give some answer to this demand ? Some time ago I asked the hon. minister if it were not possible for us to have an experimental farm, or, at all events, an agricultural school, in the province of Quebec, and he said that he was afraid the resources of the country did not warrant that. It seems to me that the statement of my hon. friend (Mr. Smith, Wentworth) would call for some explanation from the minister. Is it altogether beyond the resources of his department to have such a school established in the Niagara district or in any other part of the country where fruit can be grown with great profit ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Monk), I think, has heard the explanation which I gave not very long ago, that there is a demand from a very large number of sections of Canada for further branch experimental farms. That is the reason of the difficulty in connection with this proposal. The scale upon which the experimental farms have been started in the jdifferent localities is so great that it absorbs the money that is voted for this purpose, and it would absorb it more easily even than it does now if we were to attempt to establish branch experimental farms in larger numbers than we have them now, because we have demands from almost every section of Canada. The hon. gentleman who has just spoken, asks for one in the neighbourhood of Montreal.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I did not ask for an experimental farm, although I think that my hon. friend (Mr. Smith, Wentworth) did.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Monk) asked for a branch experimental farm. I do not know what the hon. gentleman does want if he does not want a branch experimental farm.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I asked for an agricultural college in Quebec.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: The hon. gentleman knows perfectly well that the government does not undertake to teach agriculture any more tlmn it undertakes to teach any other subject in the provinces.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I did not know that.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: The hon. gentleman knows that educational matters are entirely within the purview of the provinces and that agricultural schools, as other schools, come under the control of the provinces. Several of the provinces, Ontario, Quebec, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick have agricultural schools where agriculture is taught in various ways, but, in these Dominion experimental farms, we

do not undertake any teaching at all. It is a matter of experimental work to lind out certain information for the benefit of the farmers and that information is distributed by means of reports and bulletins and the professors from the farms attend agriculture meetings and give information in regard to their work. If we were to try to establish more branch experimental farms it would involve a large expense. I have received demands from Prince Edward Island, from Cape Breton, from the eastern part'of the province of Quebec, from the Lake St. John district especially, from other parts of Quebec, from the part of Ontario which the hon. member for South Wentworth (Mr. Smith, Wentworth) represents, from the Muskoka district, from the new Ontario district, from different parts of Manitoba .and the Northwest Territories and at a little distance from the present experimental farms there, and from half a dozen different places in British Columbia where the people believe that the work of branch experimental farms in their particular neighbourhood would be of great advantage to them. I believe this myself. It is a well-known fact that in the immediate neighbourhood of the experimental farms, agriculture on the whole has made more progress and is perhaps being better carried on than where the farmers cannot easily reach these experimental farms. It was in consequence of that feeling that when the scheme for the establishment of these experimental farms was first brought down to this House, I, as a private member in opposition, objected to the very large scale of these particular experimental farms and I contended that the subject should be dealt with on a smaller scale at each particular farm and that a more extended system of branch farms should be projected. However, that suggestion was not carried out and the farm system as proposed was established at a very heavy cost to the country, a cost which has been well repaid, I believe, because the work, which has been excellent, has been greatly to the advantage of agriculture fn this country. There has been a difference of opinion as to the best way of spending the money that is voted so as to produce the greatest good. I believe to-day that the establishment of illustration stations all over the country, in every county in the Dominion, if possible, where the results of the experimental work at the great farms could be presented as an object lesson to the farmers of the community would be of great advantage. I made a proposition of that kind two or three years ago, but it was not received with favour by the House at that time. Since that time I have received representations from a large number of farmers in the country and from hon. members in this House that they would like to see me introduce that proposition again. They believe it would carry and that it would be acceptable to the great mass of the agriculturists of the country. I believe Mr. FISHER.
myself that possibly something of the kind might well be done to advantage, but I fear that the establishment of some eight or ten, perhaps more, branch farms in addition to those we now have would involve such a large expenditure that it would be impossible to undertake any other work, although, perhaps, this other work would accrue to the general advantage of the farmers and bring more closely home to every district of the country the results of the investigations and experimental work being carried on at the farms. These are the reasons why, so far, I have not seen my way clear to meet the requests for the establishment of further branch experimental farms. There has been a large number of demands, and a large expense would certainly be necessary to comply with all these demands, and if we were to comply with one of them it would be very difficult to refuse the others. The Farm Act to-day establishes five farms, one the central farm, and the four branch ones. That was thoroughly worked out at the time of the inauguration of these farms. I confess that I have not seen my way yet to making an amendment to the Act in the way suggested by the hon. gentleman.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I have thought sometimes that if there could be an arrangement made whereby the various provinces of the Dominion would take a portion of the work and devote their attention to it the usefulness of these farms might be very much extended. In regard to the establishment of fruit stations throughout the country, I think there is one in my riding in the Georgian Bay district, and there is another in Simcoe, the next county east of us. My hon. friend says that one should be established in the Niagara peninsula, or in the Essex district, but I think that these stations might be established in other portions of the country because fruit is grown as successfully almost in every portion of the province, except it may be the peach, as in these districts. The province of Ontario is doing that work now. In connection with the spraying of fruit trees the Dominion is doing something. It seems to me that if some understanding can be reached whereby some portion of the work might be taken up by the province, and another portion by the Dominion, they would not be duplicating the same work and employing a double staff of officials. If that were done they might extend their operations, so as to make them more generally useful to the farmers.


Ernest D'Israeli Smith: The hon. member for Grey (Mr. Sproule) misunderstands me, if he thinks I suggested any such thing as the illustration station he refers to, in the province of Ontario. I am very well aware there are five or six illustration stations in Ontario in connection with the Guelph Agricultural College, but they are of such a minor character and their reports are distributed in such an ineffective manner, that

they are practically of no use whatever. That is not what we want, but a thorough going experimental farm, such as the central farm here, and the branch farms, which would take up only fruits that are indigenous and can be successfully grown in that particular section of the country. The minister has not made out a case against this by citing the many applications he receives. The climate of the province of Quebec is fairly represented by the Ottawa farm. The climate of Manitoba and the North-west is fairly represented by the farms there. The climate of British Columbia is fairly represented by the one farm, because, as Prof. Saunders says, it is so situated that they have almost all kinds of climate on account of the different elevations. So with Prince Edward Island and the maritime provinces in regard to the Nappan farm. Of course no one can expect a farm for every climate, but there is no farm anywhere in the Dominion which can be useful to the fruitgrowing districts where we grow peaches and plums and grapes successfully. That is a distinct industry and none of our farms are so situated as to fill the want in this respect. Our experimental farms perform good work in ascertaining what fruits can be grown in northern climates where these farms are situated. The Guelph farm is in a section of the country where they cannot grow peaches, plums and grapes as they do in the Niagara district. I submit that we have a good case for the establishment of an experimental farm somewhere in the fruit district. I agree with the minister that a farm in every district would be a great benefit, but of course this is impossible. We cannot have a farm for every locality that differs from the others by even a few degrees of temperature. We have now the various climatic differences fairly well represented by the five farms, in so far as grain raising and stock raising goes, but none of these farms are representatives at all of the climate of southern Ontario, where our commercial peach and plum orchards and vineyards are, and where fall wheat grows with success.
Glasgow Exhibition, $16,000.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: When the item of $25,000 was put in the main estimates it was thought that for $40,000 we could make at Glasgow a very creditable showing for Canada. We secured space in the main building, but as the importance of the exhibition came to be recognized, further demands for space were made. Towards the close of the Paris exhibition nearly all the exhibitors asked to have their exhibits sent to Glasgow and we entered into further negotiations to see whether we would be allowed to put up a building on the Glasgow grounds, as we could not otherwise secure more space. We found that we cound not make an exhibit of many important Canadian manufactures unless we did this, and our request was acceded to by the authorities. This building will cost about $14,000 and we have to ask for a supplementary vote. The Glasgow exhibition was opened the other day with great eclat and the reports are that there is a splendid showing of Canadian products and industries.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: How many officials have we employed at Glasgow and who are they ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I think there are eight at present.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Whol are they ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Col. Wm. O'Brien is the first commissioner. Mr. W. D. Scott, who was one of the commissioners at Paris and who took charge of the transfer of the exhibits to Glasgow and afterwards came here and arranged for further exhibits, has had chief charge of the forwarding and installation of the exhibits. Mr. Brodie is acting as secretary and bookkeeper. Mr. Stewart, who was at Paris, is taking charge of the mineral exhibit. He comes from British Columbia and is well known in mining circles. Mr. Thomas is one of the clerks. Mr. Hamilton, who was at Paris, is also in charge of the fruit exhibit in Glasgow. Mr. Stewart, of Ontario, is at Glasgow in connection with our food products exhibit.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What space have we at Glasgow ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: In the main building we have about 10,000 square feet of floor space and in the Canadian building about 12,000 feet more.


Jabel Robinson: Has the building been erected ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Yes.


Jabel Robinson: Have you made provision to send fruit this year ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: There is now a fine exhibit of the fruit and apples of last year.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Is the chief commissioner a man who has experience and all the qualifications required for that position. As the minister is aware, our success in these exhibitions in Europe depends a great deal on the experience and qualifications of the chief commissioner. Is it on account of these qualifications that the choice of the minister rested on Col. O'Brien, or, was he recommended to the minister, and if so by whom ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I cannot say exactly that he was recommended by anybody. I consulted with my colleagues as to our getting a proper representative for Canada at that exhibition. The

name of Col. Wm. O'Brien came to us, and we believed him to be eminently qualified to represent Canada as one who "had taken a large part in the public life of Canada and who knew the country well, and we believed he would make a fitting and worthy representative of the country at the exhibition.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: What is his salary ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: It is at the rate of $2,500 a year, the same as the other commissioner's.


Mr. WILSON.: And expenses 7


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Yes, and an allowance of $5 a day for living expenses, the same rate as is paid to the other exhibition commissioners.


Mr. CLANCY.: The minister said that Mr. O'Brien's name came to him. I was not quite clear whether Mr. O'Brien brought it or somebody else. Perhaps the hon. gentleman can tell us who brought Mr. O'Brien's name to him.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: It floated through the air.


James Clancy: The hen. minister has given Mr. O'Brien an excellent certificate of character, which may be true ; but it would quite surprise moist of the members of this House to learn that Mr. o Brien, though a very estimable gentleman, had any special qualifications for an office of that kind, other than that he was defeated at the last election, and that the hon. gentleman is rewarding him. I would like the minister to tell us what other qualifications he has besides being a defeated candidate.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I did not say that was one of his qualifications. We generally reward people for success, not for defeat.


William Humphrey Bennett: May I ask the minister whether among the recommendations which endorsed Col. O'Brien's appointment, any came from East Simcoe, or the Liberal association there, that being the riding in which Col. O'Brien resides ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I do not remember that there was.


William Humphrey Bennett: I think the minister should at least let the House know who did recommend Col. O'Brien. I think the minister said that Mr. Jardine, who was at the Paris exhibition, was handed over to him by some of the ministers from Ontario, I think the Postmaster General. May I ask the minister whether the Postmaster General specially endorsed Col. O'Brien's nomination for this position ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I am not aware that he did.


William Humphrey Bennett: Did any of the other Ontario ministers ?


Mr. FISHER.: 


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I cannot say whether they did or not.


William Humphrey Bennett: I think the minister should know who did recommend him. Perhaps the item can stand until the minister can state where the recommendation came from. I do not know that Col. O'Brien has any special qualifications to represent the manufacturing industries or the farming industries of the country, and it is pretty hard to say why he was selected, particularly in the view of the Liberals of East Simcoe. They have in their ranks many gentlemen probably as well qualified as Col. O'Brien for the position. The reason may be found in the fact that Col. O'Brien was very active for the government in the last campaign. May I ask the minister whether he can recollect that any of the Ontario ministers specially recommended Col. O'Brien ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: No, I cannot.


William Humphrey Bennett: It is nuc a matter of so much interest to myself as it is to many Liberals of East Simcoe, who are rather annoyed, when the loaves and fishes are being passed around, and such good positions are being handed out, that none of them were considered fit for this position, but that it had to be passed over to this erstwhile Tory of the Tories, Col. O'Brien.


James Clancy: Perhaps the hon. minister's mind may be somewhat refreshed now. The committee is voting a sum of money, a part of which is going to pay the salary and expenses of Mr. O'Brien; and the hon. gentleman will see the necessity of informing the committee just what qualifications Mr. O'Brien has. I believe he belongs to the honourable profession of the law. Whether that gives him any special qualifications to act as commissioner, I am not prepared to say; but the hon. gentleman must have something in his mind as to why Mr. O'Brien was appointed, and he might take the committee into his confidence and tell them what that was.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I have explained to the committee what 1 thought his qualifications were.


James Clancy: The hon. gentleman did it in so hazy a way that others who are not so bright as he could not tell exactly what he meant. Perhaps the hon. gentleman will do it again.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I do not know that the committee are particularly interested in m^ repeating what I said. We considered that Col. O'Brien was a man well known in Canada, and who knew Canada well; consequently he would be well able to represent the country at a great international exhibition. When questions came up with regard to Canada's resources and Industrial progress, he would

be well equipped to give the necessary information, and to speak well and fittingly for the country he represented.


James Clancy: What are his duties generally ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I think it is pretty well understood what the duties of a representative of a country at a universal exhibition are. He must represent the country at all the functions which take place and at meetings with commissioners from other countries ; and when distinguished visitors come to see the exhibition, he is to show them the exhibits and the resources of the country which he represents, and so on.


William Humphrey Bennett: May I ask the minister who is going to take the place so well and ably filled by Mr. Jardine, at Paris, as the representative of the manufacturing interests at Glasgow ? And further, in view of the fact that Mr. Jardine so well represented us at Paris, why was he put aside on the present occasion and not sent to Glasgow ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Because it was not necessary to send him there.


Mr. REID (Grenville).: Are the services of Col. O'Brien to terminate when the exhibition terminates ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Yes.


John Dowsley Reid: Who represents the manufacturing interests at Glasgow ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Mr. Scott.


John Dowsley Reid: Where is he from ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: From Manitoba. He was the representative of Manitoba in Toronto for many years, and attended exhibitions ais the agent of Manitoba.


Uriah Wilson: Will the minister tell us how much this $16,000 will make the total appropriation for the Glasgow exhibition, and whether it will be all he will require to pay the whole cost ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I expect it will. The appropriation for the current year is. $25,000 ; I have asked for $25,000 in the main estimates for next year; and this vote brings the total amount up to $66,000, which I think will be sufficient for the whole.


John Dowsley Reid: Is it the intention of the minister to visit the exhibition and represent the government there ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I expect to go to England shortly, but not to represent the government at Glasgow, although I shall probably visit the exhibition for a day or two.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What are the arrangements for sending goods to Glasgow ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: We
are paying for the freight. I think we pay the whole freight from the point of departure, and the port of shipment was St. John. We do not assume any responsibility for the goods and do not insure them.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Have there been any arrangements for reduced passages to people going to the exhibition ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Not by us. The passenger lines and railway companies do that kind of tiling.


James Clancy: When were those buildings constructed in Glasgow ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: They were finished in time for the opening of the exhibition, and the contract was given early in the winter.


James Clancy: What is the cost of the building ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: 

Fumigating stations, $2,700.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: These are stations established in consequence of the amendment to the San Jos6 Scale Act, in order to enable the importation of nursery stock. One of the stations is at St. John, N.B., one at St. John, Que., one at Niagara, another at Windsor, one at Winnipeg, and one at Vancouver. They are only open a short time in the spring and fall. There must be a man there who will receive and fumigate all nursery stock imported. Nursery stock can only be imported at ports where these stations are situated.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Does that cover the work done last year ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: The work of this current year.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Is the fumigation successful in destroying the San Jos6 scale.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: The entomologists say it is.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What do you fumigate with ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I think hydrocyanic acid gas.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Is it done in closed glass chambers ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: No, in small wooden sheds about 18 feet long and 12 feet wide, tightly closed in. The gas is generated in a vessel in that chamber, it fills the chamber and kills the scale on the stock if there is any. There is one chamber at each station.


James Clancy: How much was expended during the year ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Last year $2,500 was spent, but the people asked for a slight extension of time which will involve a little more expenditure in paying the men in charge of the station.


James Clancy: How are they paid ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: According to the time they work. In Manitoba and British Columbia they get $100 a month, and in the eastern part $75 and board themselves.


Ernest D'Israeli Smith: Would the $2,500 last year include the cost of the building ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: No.


James Clancy: How much did the buildings cost ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: They cost about $200 to $250 a piece.
Archives, $1,600.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: This is a cleaning up of arrears extending over several years.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I cannot understand why this estimate should not all be put in one place. We have $8,000 in the estimates of last year, and now we have $1,000. This is not a thing in which what is wanted cannot be foreseen, and if it was all in one item, we would be able to know at once the cost of this work.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I was saying to my hon. friend from East York (Mr. Maclean) that this was merely to clean up arrears. At the end of each year there has been a little larger expense incurred than the amount voted. I found out about it this year, and I wish to clear the whole thing up and start even on the 1st July next. Besides, there has been a little larger expenditure in the English copying and a little more money is required. I hope to be able to keep within the $8,000 voted next year.


William Findlay Maclean: Are there any other arrearages in the hon. minister's department?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Yes, on the next item, the year-book.
Arts, Agriculture and Statistics-Year-book, $600.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Are these arrears ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Last year, in consequence of the request of the members of the House, we issued a larger number of books than usual. I find also by the report of my officer that there was a difference in freight charges of $20 and $125 of arrears. Then there is an amount of $218 which was paid on account of two Mr. FISHER.
years ago. This was for printing. There was a dispute with the Printing Bureau as to the amount of the bill. The account had been filed but not paid. These with other things bring the amount up to $600.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I would ask the hon. minister to bear in mind the discussion we had on the year-book when it came up last time. There is great room for improvement. The hon. member for Victoria, B.C. (Hon. Mr. Prior) showed us the year-book of New Zealand, which is a vastly different production from ours. Besides its other good features, it has the advantage of being issued in parts, and is out in bound form much earlier in the year than ours is. It contains maps and a great deal of information that is not given in our year-book. If we could have such a production in Canada it would be a great advantage.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: That has been a matter of discussion. Our year-book has been a compilation of statistics pure and simple. The New Zealand year-book contains a series of articles written by different people upon the products and industries of the country.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: It contains statistics also.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Yes, but these are added to the statistical features. If we undertook to write articles upon our industries, it would certainly add greatly to the cost of the year-book.


Hon. Mr. ROSS.: And to its value also.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: No doubt, in some ways. This is a good deal like, the difference between our census and some others. In the United States we have, besides the compilation of tne figures in the census, long and elaborate articles giving a rSsumS of the various industries of the country. In our census, as in the British census, nothing of that kind is done-we simply give the figures to allow students of statistics to ascertain the facts and draw their own conclusions. I am not (prepared to dispute the value of the system. At the same time it would mean an entirely new departure in our year-book as in our census. In view of the discussion which took place a litle while ago, I am asking $1,000 more in the supplementary estimates for next year for the purpose of largely increasing the number issued. I may say to my hon. friend from Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) that I was absolutely correct in what I said about the French edition of the yearbook in a former debate. The hon. gentleman said he had not been able to get a copy of the French edition of the year-book. The reason was that the French edition was not out. But I am informed by the statistician that what I said was correct, that every year there is a surplus of the French edition, while not a single copy of the English edition is to be had.
[DOT]1609


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I will see to it that there is no surplus this year.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I find in this case the same reason for complaint as in the last item. Last year $3,000 was voted, and we are asked to vote $600 in addition, making it clear that we did not vote enough last year. Yet, this year we are voting only $3,000 in the main estimates.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: The hon. gentleman is correct in saying that $3,000 was not enough for the year. This was due, as I have explained, to the demand of the House last session that I should issue more of these year-books. But the item of $3,000 was made up in the estimates of next year before the fact came before me that this amount would not cover the expenses of this year. When I found that out, and furthermore, when in this House I was asked for still a larger number of copies, I arranged to bring down a supplementary estimate of $1,000, making $4,000 instead of $3,600, which I am asking for this year. But the reason of having to ask for these supplementary estimates is the occurrences which have taken place on the discussion, and which could not have been foreseen until that originating vote was brought down. *


James Clancy: Before we leave that item we had better have an explanation with regard to the expenditure made last year in connection with the Quebec Cold Storage Company. I find the sum expended as shown in the Auditor General's Report is not consonant with the spirit of the agreement. The minister proposed to guarantee interest at 5 per cent on $40,000. Now the sum paid is vastly beyond that sum.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Might I interrupt the hon. gentleman. There will be a cold storage item coming down later on. There is no such item now before the House. Perhaps the hon. gentleman will wait until that item comes down, it will be more in order.


James Clancy: On the hon. gentleman's assurance that there will be another item, I will let the question stand.


Ernest D'Israeli Smith: What steps are taken in the Patent Office to ensure that any one getting out a patent that some one else has not one already for the same article ? I ask this question because last summer, having to negotiate for a patent, I was told by an expert patent lawyer that any one getting out a patent in the United States could rest assured that there was no patent ahead of him for the same article, that if he got his patent he might be safe to go ahead and expend his money; but that in Canada there was not that protection taken, that sometimes a man received a patent for an article and shortly afterwards found 145
that some one else had a patent for practically the same thing.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I think the hon. gentleman must be somewhat mistaken about that. If he can give me instances of that I would be glad to investigate them, but no case of that kind has been brought to my attention. The system here is exactly the same as it is in the United States, except that we do not have as large a staff of examiners, we do not have as large a staff even in proportion to the number of applications for patents. I have been adding to that staff, and I believe I shall have to add still more, because we have not been able to catch up with the work. I have been taking on college graduates, men who have been trained scientifically in the various branches, and I find that these examiners, although young and less experienced, have proved themselves very efficient in the examination of the applications for patents. I propose to continue in that line, because I think it is only right that the very best trained men possible to be found should be employed in this work. It is a very important work, which sometimes involves thousands and hundreds of thousands of dollars of value; because the rejection of a patent might mean ruin to a man, and the acceptance of a patent wrongfully might mean ruin to somebody else. I am glad to know that several times patent solicitors have taken the trouble to compliment the office on the greater efficiency of the work of late, although I am sorry to say that even yet we have not succeeded in getting up the arrears, and getting the work to that point where I would like to see it. I am just now arranging to add another examiner to the staff.


Edward Hackett: I will remark here that I had occasioh during the session to visit the Patent Office in the interests of some of my friends who are supposed to have great genius, and who desired to acquire patents. I want to state that I found the greatest efficiency. There was no difficulty whatever in getting full information in connection with the matter. I feel perfectly satisfied that the chief, Mr. Lynch, I think it is, has the whole business at his finger's end. There is no difficulty in getting the fullest information concerning patents.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I thank my hon. friend for that tribute to the efficiency of the staff. I think it is only due to the officers who have charge of it.
Quarantine-Public health, $20,000.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: The large- increase in this vote is due to the prevalance of smallpox all over the northern part of this continent. Usually our quarantine service is confined to the seaboard, that is to say, we undertake to examine people arriving here on shipboard.



As a general rule the frontier between us and the United States is not watched. But this last year there has been a pretty extensive prevalance of a mild type of smallpox known to the profession as discrete ambulatory smallpox. It is a mild type of disease, so mild that frequently men having it do not even confine themselves to their own homes, but travel about. The results is that it spreads in a most extraordinary way. You will find a little case arising, and a little outbreak hundreds of miles away from any place where it has existed before. The result has been that our people all along the American frontier from east to west, have been asking for protection. I have consulted the Minister of Justice, who informs me that it is my duty as the minister charged with the quarantine service, to protect Canada on our land frontier as well as on our water frontier. I have been obliged to take extraordinary precautions, and to put on a large number of officials to watch the frontier wherever our office has been informed that this disease is prevalent on the other side of the line. In addition to this we have had during the last year to make provisions for some quarantine work in the Yukon territory. People have come in there from the United States, and we have been obliged to establish some quarantine officers there, and I may say that the expense is enormous. That is the reason why I have been obliged to ask this great increase in the quarantine vote.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Do you have to look after the whole frontier ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Yes, wherever there seems to be disease prevalent on the other side of the line. Dr. Montizambert, the chief of my staff, keeps watch of all that is going on on the other side of the line, and whenever there seems to be an outbreak within reasonable reach of our line, and where people are coming across, then we watch the avenues.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Have you a station at North Bay, or in the Georgian Bay district, or in the lumber camps, where it appears to be quite prevalent.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Yes, at Sault Ste. Marie. Port Arthur, Thes-salon, I think at Collingwood, and other places.
Towards the prevention of the spread of tuberculosis in cattle, $10,000.


William Humphrey Bennett: I would like to ask the hon. minister if this vote includes such officials as Mr. Stubbs, who has been appointed in Ontario ?


Thh MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Yes.


William Humphrey Bennett: Will the hon. minister please explain how many of these officials there are and how they are paid ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: 


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: By the arrangement which I made quite recently with the American authorities, the only certificates which can be received at the frontier for the test of cattle going across the frontier are those of my permanent officials. By the former arrangement the American authorities accepted the certificates given by a veterinary in Canada whose name we submitted to them, and from time to time, as occasion required, we submitted a large number of names. The American authorities had experienced some difficulties in connection with the importation of tuberculosis cattle from Europe. They made a new arrangement in connection with the testing of cattle in England, and they included Canada in this new arrangement, abrogating entirely the former arrangement. The new plan was that they should send one of their officei's into Canada to test any animals intended for export to the Uuited States. Our breeders felt this to be a great injustice, and a. hindrance to the export trade, and I was asked to try to modify it. I first of all entered into correspondence with the Washington authorities, pointing out that it was in contravention of the former arrangement, and asking them to modify it. I went down to Washington and spent a day in consultation with the Minister of Agriculture and the head of his bureau, and they agreed to accept, not the tests made by any Canadian veterinary, but the tests made by any permanent officer of my department.


William Humphrey Bennett: How many of such appointments have been made such as that of Mr. Stubbs ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: There have been three or four new appointments made. I gave the names of my officers who are already on me staff, but in consequence of the large proportion of the export trade, particularly in Ontario, I found that my ordinary officers could not undertake that work, and, therefore, I appointed Mr. Stubbs, to make his headquarters at Toronto, and be on hand for it. Ever since the appointment he has been at it day after day without interruption.


William Humphrey Bennett: Are there any others besides Mr. Stubbs ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Mr. Stubbs is the only one in Ontario. There was an officer appointed in Manitoba, not on salary, but on fees, because the export trade is comparatively small, and he is to be paid according to the work he does. There has been another appointment in the Territories to do this work, and any other veterinary work that we may require. We have had a good many demands in different parts of the Territories on account of what I may call local outbreaks of disease amongst cnttle. We have hitherto employed the officers of the mounted police veterinary force. Lately they have not been able to

do that work, and we have been employing- men for a year past to go to certain places, and we have paid them for their time. I felt that it would be necessary to have an officer, who would be one of my permanent staff, to do this work, and I have appointed Mr. Hargrave, of Medicine Hat, to be a permanent officer in the Northwest Territories.


William Humphrey Bennett: Upon what ground was Mr. Stubbs appointed ? What are his qualifications for the position, where did he get his experience, and what salary attaches to his position ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Mr. Stubbs's appointment was made on my own recommendation, from knowing that gentleman for many years as an efficient and accomplished veterinarian, a man who had experience of this kind of work. His salary is $1,200 a year, and his travelling-expenses are paid when he is away from home.


William Humphrey Bennett: The hon. minister has stated that Mr. Stubbs's appointment has been made by reason of the fact of his long-acquaintance with Mr. Stubbs, and by reason of the fact of Mr. Stubbs's connection with this class of business. I do not know how long the hon. minister has known Mr. Stubbs. He comes from the part of the country where I reside, and I certainly never heard of Mr. Stubbs being an authority on cattle. He has some qualifications as a trotting horseman and a politician. I suppose that his name came in like that of Col. O'Brien, that it was just wafted in by somebody, and that his qualifications for the position were simply those of political exigencies. As I understand it he is placed in a very important position. The fact is that if Mr. Stubbs reports against certain people's cattle they are practically blackballed as far as their exportation is concerned. I hope that Mr. Stubbs will not show the same amount of turnaboutiveness, so to speak, in his opinion of cattle that he did in his politics, because he had a weak enough back in politics. I think it will turn out that his appointment did not depend on his record as a cattle expert, but that it was due to the political turn which he did to hon. gentlemen opposite.


Robert Holmes: Mr. J. E. Blackball, of Clinton, is president of the local Conservative association. Mr. Blackhall is also a member of the Ontario Veterinary College. He told me that the appointment of Mr. Stubbs was one of the best appointments that this government had ever made, and that he, as a Conservative, was willing to endorse it.


James Clancy: It is very extraordinary the confidence that the hon. gentleman (Mr. Holmes) has in Conservatives just now. I am sure that gentleman would be greatly flattered to know that he was singled out by 145J
the hon. gentleman to give him a certificate on behalf of Mr. Stubbs. Why did not the hon. gentleman give some better reason than the title tattle of some gentleman whom he calls a Conservative, than the statement that Conservatives generally approve of it ?
I do not know that the approval of a Conservative, or of the individual who is just named by the hon. gentleman, has anything to do -with it. It is perfectly plain to the country that Mr. Stubbs is one of the lame ducks that had to be taken care of. However, I am not going to pursue that subject.
I am going to ask the hon. Minister of Agriculture whether the United States government abrogated the arrangement that the hon. gentleman concluded shortly after he came into office and entered into new quarantine regulations with Great Britain ignoring entirely the interests of Canada. Perhaps I did' not quite catch the meaning of the hon. gentleman's statement. The meaning I took was that the former arrangement made for the entry of cattle going from Canada into the United States was that the United States authorities were prepared to take certificates of such persons as might be named by the Canadian government or the minister himself. I understood the minister to state that the reason the United States refused to take such certificates, was because a new arrangement had been entered into with the mother country entirely ignoring the interests of Canada.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: The hon. gentleman did not quite understand me. In 1897 I made an arrangement with the Washington authorities which included a promise to accept the tuberculin test certificate of any Canadian veterinarian whose name was suggested to the Department of Agriculture at Washington by the Department of Agriculture in Ottawa. I gave the names of large numbers of veterinarians all over the Dominion, whom I believed to be competent, and numbers of them were recommended by the importers, because they were employed by the importers in other work and the arrangement was found very convenient. That worked all right for a long time. The American authorities began to test cattle coming from Europe and they found that frequently the certificates as to animals coming from Great Britain, very incorrect on the face of them.


James Clancy: Is not that the experience of Canada ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: To a certain extent it is. The United States authorities then issued a regulation applying to all foreign countries, refusing to accept the certificate of any foreign veterinarian and only accepting a certificate of the test made by one of their own officers. They named an official at Buffalo who would come to Canada to make the test. It was a great hardship to our exporters. It is well known that the great province of Ontario

is a breeding ground of thoroughbred cattle, I might almost say for the world, certainly for the American continent, and I am glad to say that American buyers come over and take our cattle and make a profitable . trade for our people. The exporters appealed to me to try and remove the difficulty.
11 succeeded in inducing the American authorities to issue a new regulation by which the certificate of permanent officers of the Canadian Department of Agriculture would be accepted just as certificates from their own officers. They went so far as to agree that an officer whom I have sent to England to do this work for Canada-as the United States authorities have sent an officer to England to test cattle for them-should have power to issue a certificate which would be accepted by the United States authorities on the arrival of cattle here. I reciprocated by accepting the certificate of the United States officer in England for cattle coming to Canada.


James Clancy: Has the minister an officer in England ?


The MINISTER OP AGRICULTURE.: Yes, lately sent over.
Mr-. CLANCY. What is his name ?


The MINISTER OP AGRICULTURE.: Mr. Rutherford.


William Humphrey Bennett: Another lame duck.


The MINISTER OP AGRICULTURE.: He is not a lame duck by any means.


William Humphrey Bennett: He was very lame last November.


Mr. JOHNSTON (Cape Breton).: There are others.


James Clancy: Where is Dr. Rutherford from ?


The MINISTER OP AGRICULTURE.: Portage la Prairie.


James Clancy: And so the laurels of the minister about which so much ink has been wasted declaring that he made excellent quarantine regulations, have flown to the winds.


The MINISTER OP AGRICULTURE.: No.


James Clancy: Yes. The United States government repealed these quarantine regulations and the Minister of Agriculture had evidently to go on his knees to them, and all he succeeded in getting was a promise that: they would allow the certificate of our officer in England and they also stipulated that the test must be made in Canada by an officer of our government. That was perhaps gratifying to the minister because it gave him patronage. What would poor Mr. Stubbs do if the United States authorities had not abrogated that arrangement.


The MINISTER OP AGRICULTURE.: Perhaps they did it on purpose to suit Mr. Stubbs.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: 


James Clancy: Perhaps the minister could tell us if these present regulations are favourably viewed by the Canadian breeders ?


The MINISTER OP AGRICULTURE.: When the hon. gentleman says that the arrangement that I made in 1897 has gone to the winds, he ignores the fact that that arrangement included many things besides the tuberculin test. It did away with the ninety days quarantine between Canada and the United States ; it permitted the Canadian Stocker trade with the United States, &c., as far as the tuberculin test is concerned the hon. gentleman is in error in saying that I appointed an officer to go to England at the request of the United States. I made that appointment at the request of the breeders in Ontario who import cattle from Great Britain to improve their herds and who found great difficulty in having their animals tested in our quarantine station at Quebec ; or, tested by gentlemen in England whose tests were not always satisfactory. As the hon. gentleman (Mr. Clancy) remarked, we found in our quarantine in Quebec that the English tests were not satisfactory. It was in consequence of that I decided to send a Canadian officer to make the test in England. It is true that the United States authorities did away with the acceptance of the certificates of our veterinarians, but that regulation applies to the rest of the world as well as to Canada. When representations were made to them that this was unfair to us, they said they were just as willing to accept the test of our permanent officers as of their own permanent officers and they put us practically on the same plane as themselves. They do not accept the tests of all the veterinaries In the United States, but ony the tests of their own officers, and they give the same privilege to Canada that they take to themselves. I do not know that Iwe could very well ask them to do more than that.


James Clancy: The minister will remember that there was no complaint against our Canadian veterinarians by the United States authorities. The complaint arose entirely from what were said to be unsatisfactory tests of cattle imported from Great Britain. I have never understood very clearly whether it was because of the insufficiency of the test, or the want of qualification on the part of the person making it. I am led to believe that very unsatisfactory tests have been made by persons of great skill and experience. There was no complaint with regard to the veterinarians in Canada. Why was that system not continued, instead of the hon. gentleman having a permanent staff merely at the beck and whim of the United States ? It is not an answer to say that the United States are adopting the same plan. The hon. gentleman did not ignore their arrangements ; they ignored the ar-

461S
rangement made by him, and laid down the rule, and it could not be expected that they would lay down any different rule for Canada from what they had for themselves. We were perfectly satisfied, as I understand, with the arrangement which we had before. I cannot say that Canada viewed with special favour these additional arrangements allowing Canadian stackers to go into the United States. We had about 200,000 head of cattle going into the United States last year, according to a statement Issued by the hon. gentleman himself as campaign literature, at an average of $13 a head-a class of cattle that should have been prepared and fed in Canada, instead of going to furnish raw material in the United States. If there ever was a movement that facilitated a blunder of the most gigantic kind, it was when the young stock of Canada went into the United States, instead of being matured and fed on Canadian grain, and shipped to a market where they would command a better price. If Canada is to be a mere breeding ground for the United States, the hon. gentleman has succeeded in promoting that end. He knows, as every man in Canada knows, that it is of no advantage to Canada to have such an arrangement; and the hon. gentleman would have proved himself indeed a public benefactor if he were to bring it to an end. The hon. gentleman may say the people should be allowed to do unwise things; but it is not for the hon. gentleman to provide them with all the facilities for doing unwise things ; and this is what he did in that case. As experience tries the hon. gentleman's plan, I fear that it will not be generally approved. But I come back to the question I started with: does the continuance of the tuberculin test as now carried on meet with general favour at the hands of the stock-breeders in Canada ? The hon. gentleman did not answer that.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I cannot say what universal favour it meets with. I know that a large number of the leading farmers of this country believe in the tuberculin test and want to see it continued and encouraged in the country. There are a few people who discredit it, and are afraid of it. At the same time, I am satisfied that the results of the work in connection with this test in Canada and elsewhere, have been to contribute to the general improvement of the live stock affected by it. I am satisfied that to-day the tuberculin test in Canada is making progress and meeting with favour amongst the people of the country, although I grant that there are men who dispute its efficacy, and are not willing to have it applied to their animals, just as there are people in the country who object to vaccination, although the consensus of opinion in the country favours it.


James Clancy: Surely the hon. gentleman is not putting it on the ground of prejudice
like the opposition to vaccination. The farmers of this country will not be satisfied with the hon. gentleman's statement that opposition to the tuberculin test must have grown out of stupidity or prejudice. Is it not a fact that it has been on trial long enough ? Is it not a fact that the hon. gentleman has had protests against it on the ground that it was injurious to the country ? Is it not a fact that at a very influential convention of breeders at Chicago some very strong ground was taken against it about a year ago 1 I think I may go further, and state that the Minister of Agriculture of the great province of Ontario does not quite share the hon. gentleman's view. He may find that after all he has a very small following in his contention. If the objection to the tuberculin test is founded on no better ground than the narrow ground of prejudice, such as some people have against vaccination, it would be the duty of the hon. gentleman and his department to take some means to remove that prejudice.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: We are taking the best means we can to meet and combat it, as well as to find out its existence. The tuberculin test is merely a method of finding out whether the disease is present or not. That is what it is used for. The other part of the work connected with tuberculosis is that of spreading information through the country, and leading the farmers to keep their stock in better sanitary conditions, so that they will be less liable to disease, and more likely to resist it successfully if it appears among them.


James Clancy: Has the hon. gentleman made any provision, other than where animals are found to be diseased in a herd, to quarantine them, and either kill them or allow them to die by the slow process of the disease ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: We do not compel slaughter.


James Clancy: The hon. gentleman does not compel slaughter, for the simple reason, which he has stated before in the House, that the government do not propose to make themselves liable for compelling slaughter. Does the hon. gentleman not think that we have come to a time when this country can afford, in the general interest of the country, to spend some money in slaughtering all animals known to be diseased ? It seems an extraordinary thing that in a country so great as Canada, with all its great possibilities, the people are almost intoxicated with expenditures in other quarters, while in the very necessary direction I have indicated not a cent is expended. I am surprised that the hon. gentleman has not a dollar to spare for the purpose of slaughtering those animals known to be diseased. Owing to the selfish desire, which of course

is natural, of persons owning stock, to keep the animal quarantined for months in the hope that it may recover, the possibilities of thei spread of the disease are much increased. In some very exceptional cases, the animals have recovered, but as a rule they die, and it would have been much better to slaughter them in the first instance.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: A good deal of dissatisfaction has been expressed by importers with regard to the tuberculin test. No doubt the hon. gentleman heard something of these complaints when he visited the show at Guelph. Has he decided to make any change in the regulations regarding tlie importation of cattle .and the use of the tuberculin test ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I have sent an officer to England to make the test there, for importers object to its being applied after the animals have crossed the ocean. We still apply the test to cattle coming in from the old country and the United States and elsewhere, which have not been tested previously. But cattle that have been tested by our own officer, we do not test any further. The officer furnishes a certificate, which is quite sufficient.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Is it not a fact that the importers object to the test entirely as being actually injurious and not always reliable. I have seen some reports from leading authorities to this effect. Is the hon. gentleman convinced that amongst the ablest modern, authorities the opinion is that the test is reliable ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Yes, the most reputable authorities who have thoroughly investigated this question, say that the test is reliable and does not injure the animals except in very rare cases in which the conditions are exceptional. Instances have been given, where impotency has been present after the test, but that was no doubt due to other causes, because such result has not followed the vast majority of cases in which the test has been applied. And especially is this true when I find, as a matter of fact, that other countries which buy cattle in the old country are applying this test. Argentine tests all cattle going to Argentine, and the United States tests all cattle going to that country. If a British breeder cannot send to either of these countries animals which cannot stand the test, he will send them to Canada, and we shall be practically a dumping ground for all the tuberculous animals which British breeders want to export.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Canada would be free to buy or to refuse to buy. It is not the part of the breeders to send them without finding a purchaser here. If the minister would modify his statement and, instead of saying that this Is a thoroughly reliable test, say that it is a valuable test, I would Mr. CLANCY.
agree with him. Looking up the authorities, for, as a professional man I take sufficient interest in them to go over them, I see quite a number of important articles from eminent men in that line who assert that it did produce injurious results on tlie line I have suggested, and that it was not a thoroughly reliable test. I think the hon. minister will admit that, in the United States, where they have applied the test to many animals it has been found that there is no relationship between the rise of temperature and the disease-in an animal slightly affected the temperature will occasionally go very high, while in others where the disease is in the advanced stage the rise in temperature is very slight.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: That is true.
Mr. SPROULE-while in Other cases where the disease is very bad there is only indifferent or a slight rise of temperature.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: That is true.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Therefore, the test is not thoroughly reliable in that respect. Has the hon. minister succeeded in allaying the fears of cattle exporters ? Some time ago there was a good deal of feeling amongst them on this subject, Hon. John Dryden stating that if this was to be enforced he would go out of the business, while others of almost equally extensive experience backed him up. It would seem that there has been general dissatisfaction and there was a strong demand for some change. This taken in connection with the fact that, as I believe, it has been proven pretty conclusively that this test is not thoroughly reliable though, in the main, it is the best test we know of-and with the further fact that it has been repeatedly alleged by eminent veterinarians that it produces some of the deleterious effects that I have mentioned-indicates it would be worth while to collect these data very carefully and to advance cautiously.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Since the meeting at Guelph and the discussion that took place in the newspapers at that time, about the time of my visit to Washington, a deputation of breeders of Ontario came to my office and I explained what I was doing. They said that while they would like me to get the entire absolution of the test on going into the United States, they were pleased with what I had secured; and they said that the sending of a veterinarian to England for my department was a concession they valued, and they were much gratified with the arrangements made.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: It is much better than it was.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I do not say that it is perfect.
I
4621	MAY 7, 1901	4622


James Clancy: Has the hon. gentleman (Mr. Fisher) renewed his efforts for the removal of the embargo on Canadian cattle going into Great Britain ? I should think that the hon. minister should have two strong reasons to urge. One is the overflowing gratitude wrhich we are told possesses the British heart, leading the English consumer to seek Canadian products. The other is seen in the hon. gentleman's statement that a large number of diseased cattle are coming from Great Britain to Canada


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I did not say that.


James Clancy: The hon. gentleman said that very unsatisfactory tests-


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I did not say that large numbers of diseased cattle were coming from Great Britain to Canada.


James Clancy: Well, we will minimize that to suit the hon. gentleman's position.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I said that some have come.


James Clancy: And more will come.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Possibly.


James Clancy: And the hon. gentleman suggested that we must keep up the test on cattle to be exported to Canada, or this country would be made the dumping ground for the diseased cattle of Great Britain.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: No doubt.


James Clancy: In view of these statements, has the hon. gentleman turned his efforts in the directions of having the embargo removed ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I have made efforts in that direction and am continuing to do so. I have to-day pre pared a despatch to the Imperial authorities which I hope to send by the mail this week, and I hope, when I go to England, as I shall shortly, to still further enforce the arguments, I think are very strong, in favour of removing that embargo from our cattle. I can assure my hon. friends I shall make representations as strong as I can, enforced and backed up by the feeling of all Canadians that not only is this an unfair thing itself, but that it is an unjust aspersion upon the health of our Canadian cattle. I made many representations on the subject when I was in England before. I interviewed the Minister of Agriculture and urged upon him with all my force the need of a change. Nothing resulted. I cannot tell whether anything will result from the efforts I shall make this year. But I shall use every argument,
and I think that our arguments are so strong that they cannot be met by argument, but they may be met by inaction.


William Findlay Maclean: Perhaps the hon. minister forgets that in Great Britain the farmers are becoming more and more protectionist. This may be one of the instruments of protection used by the British farmer to keep his own market for his own cattle. And the hon. gentleman will see more things like that going on there. The recent budget is said to have been a free trade budget, but on examination it will be found to have marked protectionist features. This embargo is not a question of the health of cattle, but it is part of a protectionist and agrarian movement in the interests of agriculture in England. It is just one of the indications that may be seen in England that they are coming to the protectionist view of things and that they are going to begin by protecting their own agriculture.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I would like to give some of the latest authorities on a subject of tuberculosis in Canada, but I will confine myself to one, the latest American authority :
The work began on November 21, 1894, and the record for fourteen weeks to March 1, 1895, shows 4,226 animals tested and 250 condemned. Of these 14-8 per cent failed to show evidence of the diease at the post mortems.
Then he goes on and says that in 85'2 per cent of the cases tested where there was evidence of disease, they turned out on the post mortem examinations to show evidence of diseasei
The counties of Nantucket and Dukes have been completed. A total of 1,837 animals have been tested in these two counties, with but seven condemned, all of which proved diseased on post mortem. In addition to the seven condemned on the two islands, seven other animals were bought and killed because of physical indications which induced the agents of the board to withhold the brand of soundness. None of these last, however, proved to be tuberculous.
So, it is quite clear that it is not altogether a reliable test, but, it is perhaps the best one we have up to the present.
Mounted Police-Amount required to complete service of the year, $60,000.


The PRIME MINISTER.: The other day, on the estimates for the coming year, I stated that we would have to increase our estimates liv $60,000, and bring the sum up to the neighbourhood of $400,000. The force is estimated to he of 500 men, and we have reached the conclusion by experience that under the present condition of things it is impossible to keep up the force at a less cost than $800 for a man and horse. The force is distributed over territory 700 miles in .extent. We have over seventy stations, from the limits of the boundary of Manitoba to the Saskatchewan river, and up to the Mac-

kenzie river. This year we extended our patrol even to the mouth of the Mackenzie river. For the information of hon. gentle-linen, I have had a map prepared which shows the extent of our patrol and of the territory we have to cover.


James Clancy: I would ask the right hon. gentleman if he has had brought to his notice some complaints that were made on behalf of the young men who have within the last year enlisted, by reason of being compelled, owing to an old regulation, to pay themselves the cost of transportation. It is desirable to get a good class of men, we must elect from the best specimens of young men in the country. They are not overpaid, I think. It seems to me a niggardly thing that persons enlisting, ,fior instance in the city of London or the town of Chatham, where my attention has been called to some cases, should be obliged to pay the cost of transportation to the ,North-west, and at the same time to pay some share of their outfit. I desire to ask the right hon. gentleman if any cases of that kind have been brought to his notice ?


The PRIME MINISTER.: I must say that I have not heard of any complaints of the nature the hon. gentleman refers to. The regulation is that the applicants who are admitted to the force pay their fares to headquarters at Regina, but they have to pay nothing for their outfit. The regulation has been in existence for many years.


James Clancy: I have been informed from reliable quarters that they have to pay a portion of their outfit. t


The PRIME MINISTER.: No. Could my hon. friend give me any particular case ?


James Clancy: I have a letter which I will hand to the right hon. gentleman so that he can see the nature of the complaints.


William Findlay Maclean: What is the strength of the force now ?


The PRIME MINISTER.: Five hundred men in the North-west Territories and 250 in the Yukon. With reference to the complaint mentioned by the hon. member for Bothwell (Mr. Clancy) I may say that if there have been any complaints they are very few. The force has been in existence (now for 20 years, and the regulations at present were in existence before I came into the department.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Is this amount of $60,000 applicable to the increase in the Yukon ?
The PRIME MINISTER, No, only for the North-west Territories.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: What additional number of men does it represent ?


The PRIME MINISTER.: It represents no additional number of men. When we came into office the number of men was a


Sir WILFRID LAURIER.: tittle over 700, and we reduced it to 500. But we have been rather demoralized, so to speak, by the fact that the force has been drawn upon largely for the Yukon and for South Africa. We have had to spend a good ideal in transportation to and fro, taking men from the different stations, bringing them here, equipping them and sending them to their destination. This has entailed upon us a new expenditure which we had not contemplated. Moreover, we have been extending our patrols till now they cover all the territory from the boundaries of Manitoba to the Peace river and even to the Mackenzie river. More than that, as settlement extends, there are more applications made upon us for new stations. We have been able, by changing them from one place to another, to furnish new stations without adding to the number of men, but this involves a great deal of new expenditure for transportation alone. You cannot take men to the Peace river without a large expenditure, and still more to the Mackenzie river. But doing the best we can, we cannot maintain the force with less than $800 for man and horse. There are about 400 horses. We think that in course of time we shall be able to reduce the expenditure down to a little under $800.


William Findlay Maclean: The circumstances afford a good argument for the erection of one or more new provinces in the North-west. I hope the right hon. gentleman will bear that in mind. Why this government has not established at least one new province in the North-west long ago, I cannot understand. If we had one or more provinces up there the duty of policeing the territory would devolve upon the provinces instead of upon the Dominion.


The PRIME MINISTER.: The hon. gentleman is too previous. The suggestion may be a good one, but we are taking a census this year, and we had better wait until the census is known before we carve out any new provinces.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I do not understand from the explanations of the right hon. gentleman how men enlisting with the constabulary to South Africa would cause so much additional expense. I can understand that we should have some additional expense in that connection, but with the increase in the number of men $60,000 seems to be a considerable jump.


The PRIME MINISTER.: If my hon. friend looks at the figures he will see in the comparison that there is an explanation for it. In 1896-7 the expense of the force was $504,000, in 1897-8 $369,000, in 1898-9 $402.000, in 1899-1900 $351,000. That year and the year before we had incidents occurring which rather demoralized the force. We had to take from the force 250 men and send them to the Yukon, and then we had

to take 200 men and send them to South Africa. We had to replace these men, we had to send them to Regina and then to send them out to the depots where they were stationed. That entailed a great deal of transportation which we did not have the previous year, and therefore, it is not extraordinary that we should have incurred a greater expenditure, which, under normal conditions, we should not have incurred.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: How many new stations have been established ?


The PRIME MINISTER.: I should say ten or twelve.
Mounted Police-To pay Assistant Surgeon W. E. Thompson the difference between $1,200 and $1,400 per annum from July 12, 1898, to June 30, 1901, $593.97.


The PRIME MINISTER.: The reason for this expenditure is that in 1898 Mr. Thompson was appointed assistant surgeon to the mounted police force at a salary of $1,000. He was sent to the Yukon. He has to discharge the legitimate duties of his office which are enormously increased by the fact that he has to attend to the prisoners not only of the police force, but to the prisoners under sentence to the penitentiary. We pay to the assistant surgeon $1,000, and to the surgeon $1,400. We think he is entitled to additional remuneration. He claimed $2,500 additional remuneration, but we have thought that full justice would be done if we gave him the pay of a surgeon.
Customs-Additional amount required for salaries and contingent expenses and salaries at the various ports, $33,705.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: These items are just for what is stated. This is the additional amount required for salaries and contingencies in the various provinces, necessitated in large part by the organization of the statistical branch at Ottawa. This $33,705 is a supplementary vote for the purpose of paying the officers who have been transferred to Ottawa, and the additional expense that has been incurred in connection therewith.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I do not wish to offer any objection to these items if they are in the usual form, but my bon. friend (Mr. Wallace) left here a short time ago, and he would be in a far better position than I am to offer any remarks upon these items. I am sorry when I crossed over to see the right hon. leader of the government (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) that he did not see fit to inform me that we were going into these large items.


The PRIME MINISTER.: The hon. gentleman did not ask me.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I asked the right hon. gentleman if we were going to sit late this evening.	.


The PRIME MINISTER.: That is a different question. That is not asking if large items or small items are to be taken up.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Then, to that question the right hon. gentleman did not give an answer.


The PRIME MINISTER.: I said that we should not sit late.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: This is not a large Item.


Edward Hackett: I would like to ask the hon. Minister of Customs why this great increase takes place in Prince Edward Island ?


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: It is to provide for the salary of an additional officer from the 1st of July at $800. Then, an officer has been transferred to the statistical branch of the Customs Department at Ottawa. That is Mr. McNeil, who was engaged in statistical work down there.
Miscellaneous-Additional amount required for printing and stationery, $2,500.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: The estimate for that was taken at $25,000, but two months having already elapsed, we find it insufficient. It will reach about $28,000.


William Findlay Maclean: Would the hon. minister tell the committee now what steps the government are taking to investigate the charges made against the alleged paper combine of this country, whether it comes under his department, and if so, whether he is prepared to give any information as to the procedure to be followed.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: No, that comes under the Department of Finance, and I think it is being dealt with by the hon. Minister of Finance.


William Findlay Maclean: I think this is the proper place to ask that the government should make a statement to the country in connection with it.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: When the Finance Minister is in his seat he will give the explanation.
Amount required to refund to Messrs. H. A. Nelson & Sons, of Montreal, duty paid by them in the month of May, 1892, on seventy-nine packages of fancy goods destroyed by fire in sufferance warehouse after payment of duty, $1,395.25.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: The firm had paid the duty on a quantity of goods and on the 6th of May, 1892, these goods which had just been landed from the steamer were burned in the sheds of the Hansa Steamship Company. The consignment consisted of 178 cases; 52 had been removed and 7 sent to the examining warehouse. The law is that when duty is paid on goods it cannot be returned. If the duty had not been paid the firm would have been

all right. The claim has been under consideration and it has been thought but equitable that the duty on the destroyed goods should be refunded. They, of course, had to import other goods to replace those that were destroyed, and the duty was paid again on these goods.


James Clancy: That is very reasonable.
Amount required to pay Jas. Gibson tor services as customs officer at Windsor, Ont., for 360 days ending March 29, 1894 (subject to T. H. Mann's claim of $279.21 for advances on collector's order to Jas. Gibson), $340.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: The services of Mr. Gibson were dispensed with by order of the former Controller of Customs, but he was not notified by his superior at Windsor and he continued to discharge his duties for several months. The collector paid him out of his funds, and by orders on Mr. Mann. The services of Mr. Gibson were finally dispensed with. A short time ago he asked for a fiat and the Department of Justice, after considering the matter fully, decided that Mr. Gibson was entitled to this amount in equity as well as in law.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: It is extraordinary that you should have a man 300 days in your employ without knowing it, and having two men doing the same work.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: Of course this was not during my administration of the department, but I think the House will be satisfied with the report of the Department of Justice.
Department of Customs-Amount required to pay extra and permanent officers of the statistical staff of the Department of Customs, for extra work in preparing the trade and navigation tables for the fiscaf year ending June 30, 1900, consequent on re-arrangement of the Customs statistical service, notwithstanding anything in the Civil Service Act, $3,218.50.


James Clancy: How many new officers will there be on account of this additional work ?


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: About ten. This expenditure became absolutely necessary in order to get our Trade and Navigation Returns in time for the meeting of the House. We had to avail of our permanent staff as well as the more capable of the new officers to do this work at night. There was no other way of getting it done. Careful account was kept, and the 29 or 30 officers worked in the aggregate 6,437 hours. They are paid as usual at the rate of 50 cents an hour. The system is now in working order and we will not require to ask for this special amount again.


William Findlay Maclean: Has the minister any other arrearages ?


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: No.


William Findlay Maclean: You are right up to date.


Mr. PATERSON.: 


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: Of course I will have to ask for something in the sup-plementaries for next year. I must be given a little latitude in this because the requirements of trade occasionally demand a new officer. It is not so much in view of the fact that we have to estimate for salaries and contingencies running into the millions.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: In former times there was great abuse in connection with this kind of extra work, when a man certified to his own time.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: This was certified to by the chief and assistant chief of the statistical branch, and approved by the commissioner.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: In regard to the complaint respecting the paper combine, the information furnished by the Canadian Press Association seemed to be sufficient to call for an investigation in the manner prescribed by what might be called the Combine Clause in the Tariff Act of 1897. A reference of the matter was made in the terms of tlie Act to Mr. Justice Tas-chereau of the Superior Court of the province of Quebec. He has been in Ottawa to make some arrangement in the matter and has intimated that he will be prepared to enter into the inquiry within a very few days. Due notice will be given by publication in the Canada Gazette in order that the matter may have an official stamp, and no doubt the gentlemen who made the complaint will be prepared to bring forward witnesses.


William Findlay Maclean: Is it the intention of the government to rely on those who made the complaint to supply the evidence ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: The gentlemen who made the complaint volunteered that they were ready to supply the evidence, and we shall await their action.


William Findlay Maclean: I read somewhere that they were not disposed to do that now, but wished to put the onus on the government. I would like to have that question cleared up.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: At the time the very large delegation waited on us no question of the kind was raised. All these gentlemen asked was that the machinery of the Tariff Act might be put in operation. What the government do in this matter is simply to appoint the tribunal and then it is open to all persons interested to present their claims. I may say that I was called upon within' the last day or so by gentlemen connected with the Canadian Press Association, who put some questions to me in regard to that matter. They were aware that they would have to accept a very serious responsibility, but I do not know that they were not willing to accept it; and when Judge Taschereau opens his

court, I have no doubt they will be present and will be prepared to produce such evidence as they can in support of their allegations.


William Findlay Maclean: Have any other complaints been made to the government with regard to other combines, and if so, is it the intention of the government to have them investigated ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Each one of these cases will have to be investigated on its merits. I think I am correct in stating that of late no other complaint has been made on which action could be taken. A year or more ago some complaint was made to us, but in the judgment of the government the evidence supplied was not sufficient to make out a case. I had one letter referred to me by one of my colleagues recently, but it did not furnish sufficient information to become the basis of further action.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I hold in my hand a number of letters with reference to the leather combine, which I have already dealt with in this House, and as to which I know that representations were made to the government.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I said that there were some matters a year or so ago. That is what my hon. friend refers to.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: This matter was gone into carefully, amongst others, by Mr. Gar-row, an eminent lawyer in the west, and he came to the conclusion that there was a most effective combine in that line, and one most injurious to the small tanners of the country. I hold in my hand a letter from Getty & Scott, of Galt, in answer to a letter from Mr. Smith, of Goderich, asking for information on the subject. In this letter they say :
We have Mr. Blackwell, formerly of the Stratford Shoe Company, cutting stock for us, and he informs us that you have an oak tanned stock which is very suitable for our work. While we are on the manufacturers' list of the Tanners' Association, yet if we can get a good line of stock, and at prices that would pay us to do so, we would not hesitate to break away, as the whole thing is systematic stealing.
As I understand, there are two classes of sole leather made by the tanners of the country-one called ordinary slaughter-tanned leather, and the; other Spanish sole-tanned. Only a few large firms make the Spanish-tanned leather ; and a number of men who deal In leather have entered into an agreement that they will buy all their stock from those parties who are in the combine, because by doing that they get a rebate of 5 per cent on all purchases. The result is that those who are not in the combine are obliged to buy from the parties who make oak-tanned leather, which most of them require, while those tannens who are not in
the combine and who produce only the slaughtered leather, find it impossible to sell their product. In order to get the rebate of 5 per cent, all parties have to agree to buy only from those in the combine, and have to make an affidavit at the end of the year to the following effect:
Copy of Affidavit.
Dominion of Canada, Province of	,
County of	.
To wit
In the matter of the rebate allowed by members of the Tanners' Association to purchasers of sole leather from them.
I,	of the	of
in the county of do solemnly declare [DOT]
1.	That I am a member of the firm of
carrying on business of
in the	of
and as such have a full and intimate knowledge of all transactions of my said firm or business and know that the statements herein contained are absolutely true.
2.	That since the	day of
up to the time of the making of this declaration I have neither purchased nor used in any way whatsoever, nor contracted to buy directly or indirectly, nor contracted for the production or manufacture of any sole leather of any kind or description whatsoever (except oak sole leather), save from the following firms: Shaw, Cas-sils & Co., Beardmore & Co., Breithaupt Leather Company (Limited), Logan Tanning Company (Limited), C. S. Hyman & Co., Bowman & Zln-kan, Dowker, McIntosh & Co., Marlatt & Armstrong, Muslcoka Leather Company (Limited), Acton Tanning Company (Limited), Magnetawan Tanning and Electric Company (Limited), Wing-ham Tanning Company, S. Arscott & Co., Benton, N.B.; Warren, Tobey & Co.
3.	That my firm has not, neither has any partner of mine, nor has any one acting as my agent, nor has any one acting as the agent of my firm, nor has any one acting as the agent of any partner of mine, nor has any one acting as the agent cf the business described above, nor has any one employed by me or by any partner of mine or employed in connection with the business described above, nor has any one connected with me or with any partner of mine in any way whatsoever in the business referred to above, nor has any one connected with my firm or with the business described above, either purchased or used in any way whatsoever, or contracted to buy directly or indirectly, or received for sale or sold on commission, or dealt in any way with, or contracted for the production or manufacture of any sole leather of any kind or description whatsoever (except oak sole leather), save from the above-mentioned firms.
4.	That I and all who are in any way connected with the business described above, have done no act that would disentitle the said business to the said rebate offered upon certain conditions by the firms mentioned above, in two circulars dated December 31, 1895, and January 31, 1896, but on the contrary we have faithfully fulfilled, both in letter and spirit, all conditions contained in said two circulars.
5.	That the statement marked Exhibit * A ' to this declaration is a true and complete account of the sole leather purchased or contracted tor by any one connected with the business described above from the above-mentioned firms.
And I make this solemn declaration conscientiously, believing it to be^true, and knowing that

it is of the same force and effect as if made under oath and by virtue of the Canada Evidence Act, 1893.
Declared before me at	in the
county of	this	day of
, 1897.
A Commissioner, &c.
Now, if that is not a combine, I do not know what is, and it affects all the small tanners throughout the country. I could give the names of dozens of tanners who are unable to sell their product for that very reason to the dealers who formerly handled their product. The government have been appealed to on the strength of the provision in the Customs Act which empowers the government, on proof being furnished of the existence of a combine which tended to interfere with the freedom of trade or to enhance prices, to take the duty off goods which are made the subject of such combines ; but, the government, up to the present, have refused to initiate any action in this matter, although representations have been made to them by individuals, and also collectively by petition, from different parties. The Minister of Finance tells us that they are going to take up the question of this paper combine. X can only suppose that is because they are more afraid of the press of the country than they are of the leather men, while the combine I refer to is quite as injurious and affects as large a number of people. I would strongly urge upon the government the wisdom and necessity of attacking this combine, which is a very injurious one, and the effect of which is widely felt among those engaged in the tanning business.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: It is a year or two ago now since I had the papers in relation to the so-called leather combine, and I would not care to speak too positively. But I would call my hon. friend's attention to the difference between that and the present case. What I do remember is that after careful inquiry, it was held that the information furnished with regard to the feather combine was not such as would bring the case within the meaning of the clause in the Customs Act.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: But it would bring it under the clause of the Criminal Code.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: What have we to do with the Criminal Code ? The hon. gentleman had something to do with the legislation on that question and must draw a distinction between proceedings under the Criminal Code and under the Tariff Act. Under the Tariff Act, the reduction or removal of the duty is the relief provided. But in the case of the leather combine a removal of the duty would not have the effect desired at all.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: A number thought it would.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: My recollection is that the complaint of the leather men was not so much with regard to the duty as to the fact that there was an arrangement to shut out the smaller dealers. They said to the smaller dealers : If you deal entirely with us, you will get favoured terms, but otherwise you will not. That is quite a different condition of things from that which is submitted by the paper people. In the latter case, the reduction or the removal of the duty would provide the remedy, but in the former case it would not.
There are two Acts of parliament dealing with this matter-the Tariff, which deals entirely with the duty, and the Criminal Code. Some years ago an Act was passed, initiated by an hon. gentleman on the other side, who is not now present, in which it was made a misdemeanour for persons to create a combine for the purpose of unduly enhancing prices or restricting production, &c. It was found that the word ' unduly ' made the Act inoperative, and some years later my hon. friend from East Grey (Mr. Sproule), I think it was, introduced an Act to remove the word ' unduly ' and that Act passed. At all events I supported my hon. friend. And if the gentlemen who feel aggrieved by the action of the so-called leather combine think they have a case which constitutes an offence within the meaning of the Act, they are perfectly free to take proceedings under the Criminal Code. But it is not the business of the government to initiate proceedings under that code. Any individual can go before a magistrate and take the necessary proceedings.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Before coming to power, the present government declared that they were opposed to combines and would endeavour by every possible means, to destroy them. This government had it in their power to make representations to the Attorney General of the province to set the law in motion in order to punish these parties. Several of these gentlemen have written me complaining that the government have shown indifference to their request and do not wish to act. There were two ways in which the combine might be attacked. First by a reduction of the duty, and many of those gentlemen who complain believe that that is the real remedy, while others say it is not and that the combine should be attacked under the Criminal Code. If the present government were sincere and disposed to carry out their pledges, they could adopt either one remedy or tiie other.


Mr. HENDERSON.: I fail to observe the very nice distinction which the hon. Finance Minister has drawn between the two cases of the paper combine and the leather combine, nor do I see how he could assume that the reduction of the duty or the re-


Thomas Simpson Sproule: moval of it would not be effective in breaking up the leather combine. I have heard one of the largest leather manufacturers in this country say that two per cent of the output of the American tanneries, thrown into the Canadian market, would monopolize every bit of that market. If such a small per cent of the American production would supply the whole consumption of Canada, it seems to me that the government could apply very effectively this clause in the Customs Act and remove any combine that now exists.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Would the introduction of a sufficient quantity of American leather to flood the market, help the small leather dealer who is making the complaint ?


David Henderson: The remedy would come in another way. What is wanted is to break up fhe combine.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: You would kill the patient.


David Henderson: The small man is suffering now and wants the larger man to suffer as well. If the larger man were threatened, I have no doubt that the small men would soon find their remedy.


Robert Holmes: When that leather question came up before the hon. Finance Minister, it came up on representations by a dealer in my own constituency. The statement he made, and which I believe to be in the main true, is that the leather dealers believed there was a combine to crush out the small manufacturers. The agreement produced is one that existed among some of the leather dealers, and when the matter was brought to the attention of the government, the complainants assumed that the machinery of government would be forthwith put into operation to break up the combine. They did not advance any proofs further than the agreement, and wanted the government to go ahead and act. Well, I was given to understand by the law officers of the Crown that the agreement was looked into, and that in their opinion an action at law based on it would not stand.
But the difference between the paper and the leather combine is this, that the gentlemen who made the representations to the Finance Minister the other day certainly gave him to understand that if a commission were appointed, they were prepared to bring up evidence to prove their charge.


William Findlay Maclean: If the men who feel aggrieved in connection with leather would state that the removal of the duty would break up this combine and remedy this injustice, would the hon. minister order an investigation ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: We will take each case on its merits. He can move
in this House that we take the duty off butter, without waiting for any investigation.


William Findlay Maclean: But if the hon. gentleman's party is clearly committed to any one thing, it is that if there are combines to interfere with trade, they will put them down.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: And if we do not, my hon. friend (Mr. Maclean) is here as watch-dog, to keep us to our duty.


William Findlay Maclean: But the hon. gentleman himself took the position of watch dog, and now he wants somebody to sic him on.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Why not have the commission enlarged to inquire into this line as well ? The hon. member for West Huron (Mr. Holmes) inquired as to the possibility of taking this up under the Criminal Code. The Criminal Code has been changed, and I believe that it could now be taken up under it, which might not have been the ease a few years ago. But, the government have been asked to appoint a commission to inquire into it. They have appointed a commission for one line, and what I would suggest is, that this commission should be authorized to inquire into this other line as well. It will satisfy these men who, for years, have been doing their utmost to get the government to take it up.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: That could not be done under the present commission. Each matter will have to be dealt with on its merits. I would not make any engagement on the subject in advance. Let the case be presented


Thomas Simpson Sproule: It has been presented. All they ask is investigation by the commission.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I told my hon. friend that the ease was presented, and after careful inquiries, we came to the conclusion that the Tariff Act did not afford the remedy they desired, that it would be no relief to them to reduce or abolish the duty, but that the proceeding ought to be taken under the Criminal Code.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Would it not be well to make the inquiry for the benefit of the country ?
Administration of Justice-General legal expenses, $6,500.


William Findlay Maclean: What is this for ?


The SOLICITOR GENERAL.: This is a special item in connection with the case of Mr. Burland, of the British Bank Note Company. We have obtained judgment for something over $99,000. This involved a large expenditure in connection with the auditing of the books to find the true amount due us.


William Findlay Maclean: Are the defendants in a position to pay ?


The SOLICITOR GENERAL.: Oh, yes.
Administration of Justice-Penitentiaries- Kingston-To pay John McKay for services and disbursements in connection with investigation into hinder twine transactions, $3,184.66.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What is inis for ?


The SOLICITOR GENERAL.: This is in connection with the case against Mr. Connor for the recovery of a sum due in 1896 for binder twine sold and delivered, but not paid for. It was found that the accounts of the penitentiary were not kept with great regularity. It was thought better to have a complete audit of the books-


William Findlay Maclean: This is another department that


The SOLICITOR GENERAL.: I think my bon. friend will agree that some investigation and improved system was necessary when I say that there was no stock book kept for the binder twine.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: How does this account stand ? Was the amount collected ?


The SOLICITOR GENERAL.: There is a balance of about $9,000, which is as good as collected, because there are large amounts payable from the Department of Railways and Canals to the Connollys in connection with a contract they had at St. John, and out of that, the Auditor General is keeping enough to pay this account. Our judgment is against the Connollys as well as against Connor, and the Connollys are good. Practically, that matter of the binder twine is now closed.


William Findlay Maclean: Can the Solicitor General give us any information concerning a report of a new court for the empire or some improvement on the judicial of the Privy Council ?


The SOLICITOR GENERAL.: I should be glad to give my hon. friend the information, but as the Prime Minister has just come into the Chamber, he is the proper channel of information of that kind. I may explain to the Prime Minister that, in connection with the penitentiaries, the hon. gentleman (Mr. Maclean) wishes some information about a court for the empire.


William Findlay Maclean: The Solicitor General (Hon. Mr. Fitzpatrick) was on his feet, and in connection with an item relating to his department, I asked him whether he was in a position to tell the committee what truth there was in the report of an extension of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council-


The SOLICITOR GENERAL.: A reorganization.
Mr. MACLEAN-or a court for the empire. I wished to know what truth there was in
it, and whether the government of this country has been consulted in it.


The PRIME MINISTER.: The only truth in the statement is, that the government of this country, as well as those of the other self-governing colonies, have been invited to a conference in England to consider that matter, and we shall send a delegate some time in May or June.


Edward Hackett: This item for Mr. McKay appears to be a large item. How long was he engaged, and at what rate of pay 1


The SOLICITOR GENERAL.: The auditor was engaged for 52 days, for which he was paid $25 a day, he paying his own expenses. There were 99 days for assistants' time.
Administration of Justice-Penitentiaries-St. Vincent de Paul-To pay Hector fussier award for damages caused to his property by penitentiary sewerage and for costs and expenses, $1,922.08.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Will Mr. Lussier accept this amount, and will he be satisfied with it ?


The SOLICITOR GENERAL.: I am not sure that he is satisfied, but he is obliged to accept. He proceeded by petition of right, claiming $4,000. After his petition had proceeded a certain way in the courts, it was decided to refer the case to a referee, the understanding being that all parties should abide by his award. Mr. Lussier has protested, but the amount, I think, was reasonable. It is true he has suffered some damage, but I do not think he has suffered anything like the amount claimed.
Administration of Justice-Dominion Police- Canal Protection Service-Further amount required, $12,000.


The SOLICITOR GENERAL.: This is in connection with the whole system of canals.


David Henderson: Has that $12,000 been expended yet ?


The SOLICITOR GENERAL.: This is required to continue the service of protecting the canals, at its present strength. We have maintained this service for the last two years. I may say that the cost of protection has been heretofore about $4,000 a month, and the rate of pay of constables has varied from $1.50 to $2. It is the same service that was inaugurated two years ago at a time when hon. gentlemen will agree it was prudent to adopt this system.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Does this extend over the Lachine canal ?


The SOLICITOR GENERAL.: I think it is principally for the Welland canal.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Because during the last election we had a great many people guarding the canal from Lachine to Montreal.


Mr. FITZPATRICK.: Yukon Territory-Administration of Justice- Additional amount required for maintenance of prisoners, $10,000.


The SOLICITOR GENERAL.: The Mounted Police Department reports that the rate heretofore allowed of $1 per day for maintenance of prisoners is too small, and they ask for $2 per diem. This necessitates doubling the present vote.


David Henderson: It is a very extravagant estimate. In our jails throughout the province of Ontario prisoners are well maintained on from five to ten cents per day. $2 a day is a most extravagant estimate for the support of a prisoner. They must be provided for very lavishly indeed. I think they must feed them on the same fare that they provide for the high court judges out there.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: The hon. gentleman must be mistaken when he says that prisoners are maintained for from five to ten cents per day. That will not supply food that will maintain a man in health in any country in the world.


David Henderson: I think the Minister of Agriculture must not have read the report of the Minister of Justice very lately, or he would have found that such is the case. I am speaking entirely from memory, but I am confident that in my own county it does not cost anything like ten cents a day to maintain a prisoner, and they are well fed, and get fat.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I have given some attention to this subject, and I know that authorities have never pretended that a human being could be nourished and kept in life for less than ten cents a day.


David Henderson: I am sorry that I have not the report of the Minister of Justice in my hand, but I think there are hon. members who will bear me out in the statement that ten cents a day is a fairly good allowance for maintaining prisoners in the county jails in Ontario, at least. There are counties in that province where prisoners are well fed at even less than ten cents a day, in some instances for eight cents a day.


Mr. BRITTON.: I doubt if the hon. member will find this statement as a matter of formal report in the report of the Minister of Justice, because 'the maintenance of prisoners in Ontario jails is a provincial matter entirely.
Contribution for Canadian Law Library, London, England, $250.


The SOLICITOR GENERAL.: This item has been in the estimates for ten or fifteen years past. They have in the Canadian office in London a law library that is accessible to all Canadians who visit the High Commissioner's office in London. I can say from
personal experience that it is exceedingly convenient for us to have access in London to our own statutes and works of that sort. Those who visit London on business, especially professional men, find it very convenient to have such a library. It was inaugurated by the late Sir John Thompson, and has been of great service.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Is this amount required to pay for our statutes ?


The SOLICITOR GENERAL.: Of course we get our statutes gratis, we get the reports of our Supreme Court gratis; but the reports of the provincial courts they do not get, the law books of the provinces they have to purchase. This amount is all expended each year for that purpose.
Allowance for expenses of the Hon. Wm. Mu-lock as representative of Canada on the occasion of the inauguration of the new Commonwealth of Australia, $10,000.


William Findlay Maclean: Would the government tell us whether any special instructions were given to the hon. Postmaster General (Hon. Mr. Mulock) looking to a trade preference as between Australia and Canada, or anything else, or could they tell us what his instructions are in connection with his trip to Australia ?


The PRIME MINISTER.: The hon. Postmaster General has gone to Australia for the inauguration of the first parliament of the Commonwealth. He has gone upon invitation, and therefore his first object is simply to represent Canada. He has no special instructions, but of course he is expected to have an eye to business, and to see what can be done to develop our trade relations with that country.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Has the government any information in regard to the assault that was made upon him while he was on the way ?


The PRIME MINISTER.: I am glad to say we have not heard of that.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Has he arrived yet ?


The PRIME MINISTER.: My impression is that he has not arrived, but he will arrive within a day or two.
Militia-Further amount required, $12,000.


The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE.: This is in connection with transportation. When the militia was withdrawn a year ago from the Yukon there were some unsettled bills, the accounts have only been adjusted recently, and this is the balance due for the transportation of goods in and for transportation out from Dawson City.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Would the hon. minister tell us if this amount is due to one single individual or company or to whom it is due ?


The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE.: I think the whole of it is due to the Boston and Alaska Transportation Company.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: It is not exactly apropos of this subject, but I was questioned to-day as to the rate which the Electric Railway Company were allowed to charge in carrying men out to the rifle range. I understood the hon. minister to say, the other day, in answer to my question, that they would carry them at a 5-cent rate.


The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE.: At a 15-cent rate.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: That would be a 10-cent rate from Rockliffe Park out to the range ?


The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE.: I think it is a 15-cent rate out to the range.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: It seems to me that in consideration of the government having paid for the ties and rails-I do not know whether the right-of-way was given them- they are not granting very great concessions to those who use the line in going to the rifle range.


The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE.: I have been largely guided in the matter by the Dominion Rifle Association which has really had this matter in charge and through which the business has been done. It made an arrangement which I thought was fair and satisfactory to the Rifle Association and to the public. I supposed that the members of the association were better judges than I was and I agreed to the rate.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I do not know why they should be any better judges.
Pensions-Payable on account of Fenian raid, $300.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I would like to ask the hon. Minister of Militia whether he understands that every one of those men who took part in that raid and who are entitled to the medal can claim the allotment of land given by the Ontario government for those who were engaged in active service at that time.


The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE.: I have not seen the actual terms under which the grant is proposed to be given by the Ontario government, but I was told that it was only to be given to those who were actually engaged in the conflict. The medal is given, under the regulation, which we thought was fair, to all those who were engaged in any special or specific duty in connection with the defence of the country at that time. I fancy the scope of our regulation is wider than the terms of the grant of the Ontario government. Of course, I am only speaking from hearsay. This item is simply to make up a deficiency which Mr. MONK.
occurred in the vote for the current year through a misprint. The vote was $300 below what it has been for years owing to a typographical error.
House of Commons, $29,650.


William Findlay Maclean: In connection with this vote for the House of Commons I wish to bring to the attention of the government the practical working of the laws we now have in regard to contested elections. Mr. Thornton was elected for West Durham. He is entitled to his seat, he is entitled to his sessional indemnity and yet no provision has been made for the payment of it. He is kept out of his seat and if for no other reason I contend that Mr. Thornton should be given a seat in this House in order to help him to make up his election expenses and the heavy expenses he has been put to in connection with the election trial that is taking place. I believe his case was under consideration to-day, and that it goes over, which shows the bad policy of leaving such cases to the courts. The injustice that maybe done to a man by leaving to the courts these cases can be easily righted by this House if it had the courage to deal with it. I hope that the Minister of Finance when lie is putting through those contingencies in connection with legislation will insert an allowance for the sessional indemnity of Mr. Thornton who ought really to be a member of this House, and would be, if the House did its duty and gave him the seat to which he is entitled.


The SOLICITOR GENERAL.: Would it be logical to produce the indemnity for a person who did not come here at all? The indemnity .means to indemnify him against loss by reason of his coming here.


William Findlay Maclean: He is willing to come.


The SOLICITOR GENERAL.: The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court won't allow him.


William Findlay Maclean: It is the government that won't allow him.
Some resolutions reported.
The PRIME MINISTER moved the adjournment of the House.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I will make so bold as to ask the right hon. gentleman, what business will be taken up to-morrow ?


The PRIME MINISTER.: I will have no hesitation in saying tq my hon. friend that we will take up Bills, the resolutions of which we have given notice, and then supply.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: What items in supply.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: There are some reserved items in Public Works. Unless there is some understanding between the Minister of Railways and the member

for South Lanark (Hon. Mr. Haggart) to the contrary, we will take up railway items. The Minister of Trade and Commerce may submit his estimates.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House adjourned at 12.50 a.m. Wednesday.
[Stage Direction]
Wednesday, May 8, 1901.