1901-04-11

QUESTIONS.


Mr. BRUNEAU asked :: Which of the departments is invested with the control, maintenance, &c., of the beacons on the River Richelieu, between Sorel and Cham-bly?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES (Hon. Sir Louis Davies).: I would ask my hon. friend to let that rest until we get some further information as to which department has control of these beacons.


CARETAKERS OF PUBLIC OFFICES.
Arthur Aimé Bruneau: What are the respective salaries of the caretakers of the public offices at Three Rivers, Montmagny, Sorel, St. Hyacinthe, St. Johns (P.Q.), St. Jerome, Quebec and Montreal?
The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE (Hon. Sydney Fisher), in the absence of the Minister of Public Works :
Salary per year of caretakers of public buildings :
Three Rivers customs house.... $300
Three Rivers post office	 400
Montmagny, no salary, receive^,rent of offices.
Sorel	$400
St. Hyacinthe	 400
St. Johns	 350
St. Jerome	 350
Quebec post office	 700
Montreal, Dominion buildings. No caretaker.


ICE GUARDS, STE. ANNE DE SOREL.
Mr. BRUNEAU asked :: 1.	How many new ice guards have been constructed since 1896 in the parish of Ste. Anne de Sorel?
2.	What has been the total cost thereof? The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE
(Hon. Sydney Fisher). In the absence of the Minister of Public Works :
1.	Five.
2.	$5,543.57.


MR. A. PACAUD'S LEASE OF BUILDING.
Mr. CLANCY asked :: 1.	Has Mr. AurSIe Pacaud, the publisher of Le Progrgs, of Windsor, Out., a lease of the government building which he occupies as a printing office? If so, wrhat rent does he pay per annum?
2.	Is he in arrears for rent? If so, how much ? What steps are the government taking to collect the arrears, if any?
3.	When was the lease executed? Is Mr. L. N. Castanier, customs officer at Windsor, one of the lessees?


Mr. SIFTON.: 


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE (Hon. Sydney Fisher).: In the absence of the Minister of Public Works :
1.	An arrangement was made with Mr. Pacaud by which he was to pay $10 a month, for two years, and make necessary repairs to the old Weights and Measures building at Windsor, and after the two years to pay $12 a month.
2.	Orders have been issued to collect the amount of rent now due, which is $210.
3.	As the lease w;as under pleasure, and for a small amount, it was not thought necessary to enter into a formal lease. The department Is not aware that Mr. Castanier is one of the lessees.


COAL-BEARING LANDS.
Hon. Mr. HAGGART asked :: 1.	Referring to the statute 60 and 61 Victoria, chapter 5, section 1, subsection 1, has the Canadian Pacific Railway Company, or any other company referred to in said subsection, conveyed or caused to be conveyed to the Crown in the interest of Canada, any and what coal-bearing lands in said subsection referred to?
2.	If so, has the Governor in Council prescribed any and what conditions with respect to the holding, disposal or dealing with such lands by the government?
3.	Has the government or the Governor in Council disposed of, or otherwise dealt with the said coal lands, or any portion thereof, in any and what manner ?
4.	Has the government or Governor in Council disposed of the said lands, or any portion thereof, to any persons or corporations? If so, to what persons or corporations, and upon what terms have such lands been so disposed of, and what portion of such lands have been so disposed of?


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR (Hon. Clifford Sifton).: To 1, 2. 3 and 4, the answer is, no. But, I may say for the further Information of my hon. friend, that the railway company has been for some time ready and willing to transfer the lands so soon as they might be selected. Tbe selection is a matter of considerable difficulty, and involves a great deal of work. Ever since the snow went off the ground last year, and until the work became impossible again last fall, I had a party of topographical surveyors, and also an expert geologist, with the necessary assistants, going over the country for the purpose of putting the department in a position to make the selection. The plan of the territory has now been prepared, and I have all the information that is necessary for a practical selection. As soon as the snow is off the ground, it is the purpose of the government to send a properly equipped party, including men with the necessary expert knowledge, to determine upon the selection.


POSTMASTER AT GOODLANDS, MAN.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. ROCHE (Marquette)-by Mr. Taylor-asked :
[Stage Direction]
1.	Has Mr. Good-lands, formerly postmaster at Ooodlands, Man., been dismissed from that position?
2.	If so, why? Were charges made against him, what were their nature, and by whom made?
3.	Was an investigation held?
Hon. JAMBS SUTHERLAND :: 1.	Yes. '
2.	On the ground of political partisanship, representations having been made by the member for the constituency. The Postmaster General accepted such representations and ordered his dismissal.
3.	No investigation was held.


RECIPIENTS OF FISHING BOUNTY, QUEEN'S COUNTY, P.E.I.
Mr. HACKETT asked :: 1.	What is the name of the officer who received tile claims for Ashing bounty and who distributed the cheques to fishermen in Queen's county, P.E.I., for the year 1900?
2.	How many claims were filed, and ho-w many cheques issued for said year?
3.	What are the names and post office addresses of fishermen who claimed bounty and were paid same, with the amount paid each?


The MINISTER OP MARINE AND FISHERIES (Hon. Sir Louis Davies) :: 1.	W. 0. Hobkirk, fishery overseer, Queen's county.
2.	and 3. I must ask my hon. friend (Mr. Hackett) to move for a return. I could not fill up ' Hansard ' with the hundreds of names of fishermen with their post office addresses who received, bounties. If I did it for Queen's county, I might be called upon to do it for the other counties in the maritime provinces, and that would take up a whole ' Hansard ' of itself. If my hon. friend desires special information. I will be happy to show him the list in the department, and he can examine it ; or, if he prefers to do so, he can move for a return.


Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).: But there will be no opportunity to move for a return.


The MINISTER OP MARINE AND FISHERIES.: There will be no objection. It can lie put on the Notice paper, and we will take unopposed motions some day.


Robert Laird Borden: But notices of motions will not be reached.


The MINISTER OP MARINE AND FISHERIES.: I would just point out to my hon. friends that there are thousands of names and post office addresses of fishermen who have received bounties, and a separate ' Hansard ' would be needed if I should give the names of all in the maritime provinces. There are some hundred in this county alone.


LOSS OF THE JENNIE MAY.
Mr. HACKETT asked :: 1. Has the Minister of Marine and Fisheries ordered an investigation into the causes of the
loss of the schooner Jennie May, at Ebbsfleet, P.E.I., as promised in his letter of the 25th May, 1900, to Capt. Thomas Reid, as follows :-[DOT] ' I regret very much to heas of the loss you have sustained in going into the harbour of Ebbsfleet, as you allege, from want of buoys. I shall have immediate inquiries and a thorough investigation made into the alleged absence of these buoys. If the officials of the government are to blame, I will have them severely punished '?
2.	If such investigation has been held, what is the report of the fcfficer?
3.	Has any person been paid for the loss thus sustained?
4.	If so, what is his name, and the sum paid in connection with such loss?


The MINISTER OP MARINE AND FISHERIES (Hon. Sir Louis Davies) :: 1.	The minister did not promise an investigation into the loss of the Jennie May in his letter of the 25th May, 1900. He promised to investigate the alleged absence of the buoys ; a different thing entirely. It is alleged that the loss of the vessel was due to other causes.
2.	The promised investigation was made. The report of the officers state that the buoy contractor was notified to place the buoys on the 5th of May, but owing to the impossibility of getting chain at Ebbsfleet for the can-buoy, the buoys were not put out till the 16th of May. This date was the earliest one on which the buoys were placed for many years. The officers also reported that the loss was due to causes which the buoys could not have prevented.
3.	No.
4.	Nothing has been paid.


IMPROVEMENT OF SOUTHAMPTON HARBOUR.
Mr. HALLIDAY asked :: Is it the intention of the government to make the immediate improvements in the Southampton harbour that the Minister of Public Works found necessary on his recent visit to that place, and what are the improvements the government propose to make?


The MINISTER OP AGRICULTURE (Hon. Sydney Fisher).: Tlie matter is now receiving consideration.


REPORT PRESENTED.
[Stage Direction]
Summary report of the Geological Survey for the year 1900-Hon. Mr. Siftou.

[Stage Direction]
The MINISTER OP FINANCE (Hon. W.
S.	Fielding). Before the Orders of the Day are called, I desire to say a word to give notice respecting estimates. We propose to resume the consideration of the estimates of the Minister of Railways and Canals tomorrow afternoon. To-day we proceed with the Election Bill, but if there is time for estimates during to-day's sitting the estimates of the Minister of Agriculture will be taken up.

Mr. ROBERT IJICKERDIKE (St. Lawrence, Montreal).: I would ask the Prime Minister if lie would fix a day next week -Wednesday would be convenient-for tlie further discussion of the transportation question. I have a motion on this subject on the paper, but I am afraid it will not now be reached in the ordinary course, and there will be no possibility of reaching it except by the consent of the leader of the House.


The PRIME MINISTER (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier).: I shall be happy, Mr. Speaker, to proceed with the discussion on Wednesday next.



BAR AT THE MOUTH OF THE THAMES.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. GEORGE STEPHENS (Kent, Ont.) Before the Orders of the Day are called, I wish to call the attention of the government to a matter of immediate and pressing importance. When I reached Chatham last Friday I found that the bar at the mouth of the River Thames had so accumulated that the boats from the city of Chatham could not get out into the lake. I wired to the Minister of Public Works, this being a copy of my message :
Chatham, April 6, 1901.
J. Israel Tarte, Ottawa.
Steam barge " Ireland " stuck on bar since April 3rd. Cannot get off. Only seven feet water. Best time to do work now. Other boats waiting; cannot get out. Chatham dredging plant ready to begin work; price, $8 per working hour. Answer quick.
(Sgd.) GEORGE STEPHENS.
I waited until yesterday afternoon for a reply to this message, but did not get any. I then saw the Prime Minister and asked him to speak to the Minister of Public Works. Last night at eight o'clock I got this reply :
Office of the Minister of Public Works of Canada,
Ottawa, 9th April, 1901. George Stephens, Esq., M.P., Ottawa.
Dear Mr. Stephens,-Your telegram dated at Chatham, April 6th, has come to hand in due course. We have nothing to do with accidents to ships. It is the reason why I did not authorize the work suggested in your despatch.
Truly yours,
(Sgd.) J. ISRAEL TARTE.
Mr. SPEAKER.: Do I understand that the hon. member (Mr. Stephens) will conclude with a motion ?


Mr. STEPHENS.: Yes. Yesterday afternoon, I received this message :
Chatham, Ont., April 10, 1901. George Stephens, M.P., Ottawa.
Major Gray expected here to-night. Have you orders for him to see about bar at river?
(Sgd.) CHAS. HADLEY.
I have not been able to see the hon. Minister of Public Works in Ills office. I met him in the lobby yesterday morning as he came out of the committee room, but he would not give me a hearing. He would not give me any information whatever. I met him in the afternoon and tried to show him this telegram, but I could not get him to stop and look at it or pay any attention. To-day I have another telegram ;
Ottawa.
Can you not get reply to ours yesterday to George Stephens, M.P., signed ' Hadley.' ?
(Sgd.) Chatham, Ont.
I have not sent any reply to these telegrams, for the simple reason that I have not been able to get any information, and do not know what to say. Traffic by the river is at a standstill. Our lumber merchants in Chatham, who bring their lumber by boat from Georgian Bay points are unable to bring in material, except by rail, which is much more expensive. Buildings now under construction in Chatham cannot be proceeded with because building stone cannot be brought in. There are several boats now waiting ready to start, but they cannot get out. I do not see any reason why this work should not be done at once. I confess I am surprised at the manner at which the subject has been treated by the hon. Minister of Public Works. I know that he is a very busy man, but, if he has not time to attend to the business committed to his charge, one would think that at least he could treat members of the House with courtesy. I move that the House do now adjourn.


Mr. SPROULE.: You had better resign and bring on another election, and then you will hurry the matter up.


Mr. JAMES CLANCY (Bothwell).: I cau quite understand the importance which the hon. gentleman attaches to the work of clearing the bar being done at once, and am not at all astonished that he should feel rather warm over the delay in doing that work. There is a capital dredging plant on the ground, and it seems very extraordinary that that dredge should not have been put at the work. The price asked is $8 per hour for each working day, which is the ordinary price for dredges of similar capacity. I hope that [DOT] the Minister of Public Works will not delay any longer, because this is a matter of great concern to the people of that locality and the shipping interests.


The PRIME MINISTER (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier).: It is quite true that my hon. friend from Kent brought the matter to my attention, but he must remember that at this jieriod of the session, when the House sits to a late hour and the committees are called at an early hour, such matters do not always move as promptly as would be satisfactory, but I have no doubt that my hon. colleague, who is not in his 'place just


Mr. FIELDING.: 



1L 1901

[Stage Direction]
now, will do wliat he can to meet the views -of my hon. friend.
Mr. N. CLARKE WALLACE (West York).: The delays mentioned by the hon. member for Kent are quite inexcusable. We are told that there is a surplus of $8,000,000 in the treasury. Surely a few hundred dollars could be devoted to enabling the prosperous city of Chatham to carry on its essential business of getting lumber, stone and all the other supplies, which must necessarily come by the wrater route. It appears to me that the town of Chatham has a substantial grievance in this matter. We are voting large sums yearly to the Department of Public Works exactly for such improvements as are required in this case-improvements that are urgent. And, as has been pointed out by the hon. member for Kent, there is a dredge right on the ground ready to do the work at the government price of $8 per hour, so that in the shortest possible time the sand bar could be removed and the navigation made clear. It seems extraordinary that a member of parliament should be obliged to rise in his seat and call attention "to a matter of this kind, which should have been remedied the very first moment the attention of the Minister of Public Works was called to it.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS (Hon. J. I. Tarte).: I am sorry the hon. gentleman (Mr. Stephens) did not see fit to notify me that he was going to bring this matter before the House, but as he is a new member, this course probably did not suggest itself to him, and we will not be the worse friends on that account. A barge or a boat has grounded at Chatham, and it does not come within the province of the Department of Public Works to float boats that are grounded. The duty of removing such obstacles belongs to the Department of Marine and Fisheries. Besides, I have no money available for dredging purposes, and I cannot carry on work -without money, more particularly in a case like this in which it is not my duty to interfere. I would be very glad indeed if it were my duty, but there are boats grounded nearly every week in the St. Lawrence, in navigable waters, and I am never called on to send down dredges or other boats to haul them off.
My hon. friend would perhaps not have called the attention of the House to this were he aware of the fact that my youngest daughter is down with typhoid fever, and that the very first moment his telegram came, I had to leave for Montreal. I returned as soon as I could, and then answered the telegram.


James Clancy: Surely the hon. gentleman does not pretend to say that he would not be justified in sending a dredge at once to clear the harbour and trust to the House to vote the money.


George Stephens: Has the hon. gentleman not got a vote for this in the estimates of this year ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: My hon. friend knows that until the money is voted I cannot use it, and at this moment I have not a dollar voted.


George Stephens: I asked the hon. minister if he had the money in the -supplementary estimates and he said he had, and I supposed that he would be prepared to go on and spend it. The company which owns the dredge would not be very exacting about getting paid at once, and would be quite willing to wait. And as regards the ungrounding of the boat, my telegram merely mentioned the fact that the boat had grounded, so as to emphasize the necessity of going on with the dredging at once in order to enable other boats to go over the bar. I did not ask him to take the sunken boat off the bar, but simply mentioned the fact in order to impress him with the importance of immediately setting the dredge to work to clear the bar so that boats could pass with facility, ilf this work be not done, navigation will be stopped and steamers will not be able to ply to and fro and may be tied up all summer. If that is what is going to happen, then Canada must be a very much poorer country than I thought it was.



FRANCHISE ACT AMENDMENT.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 63) to amend the Franchise Act, 1898-The Solicitor General (Hon. Charles Fitzpatrick)-read the second time, and considered in committee.
On section 1,
Robert Laird Borden: The hon. Solicitor General might explain to the committee the effect of this amendment.


The SOLICITOR GENERAL.: Paragraph c of section 5 of the Franchise Act now reads :
The voters' lists shall he those prepared for the several polling divisions so established, and which on the sixtieth day next preceding the clay fixed for the nomination of candidates for *such Dominion election were in force or were last in force under the laws of that province for the purposes of provincial elections.
The intention is to omit the word ' sixtieth,' so as to have it read that :
The voters' lists shall be those prepared for the several polling divisions so established and which on the day of the date of the writ for such Dominion elections were in force or were last in force under the laws of that province for the purposes of provincial elections.
This eliminates the sixtieth day altogether. The clause as it now reads provides that the voters' lists shall be those in force sixty days previous to nomination.


Robert Laird Borden: There is another 1 amendment effected. Instead of the date of

nomination you take the date of the election.


The SOLICITOR GENERAL.: Yes, the date of the issue of the writ.


Mr. BENNETT.: I would like to ask the hon. Solicitor General if this refers to some particular district, when the words ' polling divisions so established ' are used, or, does that' mean all the divisions throughout the Dominion.


The SOLICITOR GENERAL.: All the divisions throughout the Dominion.


Mr. MONK.: I would like to ask the hon. Solicitor General if there is any doubt under the clauses as prepared that the lists in force on the date of the writ will be the lists that will 'govern the election, because, if the Solicitor General will notice, the clause says further : ' Or were last in force.'


The SOLICITOR GENERAL.: I do not think that these new words make any material difference.


Hon. Mr. PRIOR.: I would like to ask the hon. Solicitor General whether this amendment will cure a state of affairs that occurred in British Columbia at the last election. According to the local Act, the list is revised twice a year-I think on the 1st of May and the 1st of November. If these are not the exact dates it is not material, but, it is a fact, nevertheless, that the revision took place a few days before the election, and as sixty days had not intervened between the revision and the election the electors had to use a list that was nearly seven months old. Owing to that there was a large number of men who lost their franchise. Will this do away with that state of affairs ?


The SOLICITOR GENERAL.: This amendment is intended to meet absolutely such a case as that pointed out by the hon. gentleman (Hon. Mr. Prior). The object is to have the latest list for the election.


William Humphrey Bennett: May I ask the hon. Solicitor General if it is a fact that the voters' lists used in the last general election were some of them the provincial lists of last year and some of them lists of the year before ? Iam informed that in many constituencies the voters' lists were not at all of the one year, but that some of them were the lists of laiSt year, and some the lists of the year before.


The SOLICITOR GENERAL.: I presume there were some places in Ontario where the revision would not take place at a fixed period of the year and the list would not come into force within sixty days, and that, notwithstanding that it would be the list for that year, it would not be used for the election. Now, it is intended to so arrange matters that the list to be used will be the list in force at the date of the issue of the writ for the election, without any reference to any previous time of revision.


Robert Laird Borden: 


Hon. Mr. HAGGART.: Perhaps it is rather late to discuss the 'question, for the discussion of which I rise at the present moment. I see in this clause, you have virtually adopted the provincial voters' lists, which may be iu force from time to time, or, In other words, you give to the province the right of fixing the qualification of the voter or to decide who shall be the voter in Dominion elections. I may be entirely wrong, but I contend that we have no power to do that, that it is a power that is vested entirely in the Dominion parliament, and that we cannot, as we propose to do in this Bill, divest ourselves of that power and give it to the local authorities. I am objecting to it on the constitutional ground. The hon. Minister of Justice must have considered that point. It must have been brought before his department, and I -would like from the Solicitor General an authoritative statement on behalf of the department whether the power is vested iu the Dominion parliament to divest ourselves of the authority which is given us under clause 41 of the British North America Act and to give that power to the provincial legislature.


The SOLICITOR GENERAL.: I think the constitutional principle that the hon. gentleman (Hon. Mr. Haggart) has laid down, is absolutely correct, that we have no power to delegate to the local parliaments the right to fix our franchise. But, this is not what we are doing. We are adopting the franchise of the provincial parliaments. We are not delegating to them the right to fix the franchise, but we are adopting the franchise that they have fixed. There is a broad distinction between the two, and I would like the hon. gentleman not to overlook the-fact that previous to the adoption of the Franchise Act of 1886, this was the system which prevailed. It was only in 1886 that we assumed the right to make the franchise. This system is no new departure. It is adopting the old system, which was in existence from confederation down to 1886.


John Graham Haggart: I am glad to hear that we agree upon the legal point. Now, the question is one of fact. The hon. Solicitor General says that we have adopted the voters' lists which were in force in the provinces at a particular time. If that were so, I admit that we would be perfectly within our jurisdiction, but does he not see the distinction that it is not the voters' lists which are in force, but the voters' lists which may be altered from time to time by the provincial authorities that we are adopting.


Mr. ROBINSON (West Elgin).: Is it the intention to adopt the marked ballot as well as the provincial voters' lists, because if you propose to adopt the marked ballot I for one will fight it here all day.


The SOLICITOR GENERAL.: The provincial franchise was adopted when we introduced this Bill two years ago, and it was

adopted after a very lengthy discussion. Then the question raised by the hon. member for Lanark (Mr. Haggart) as to our right to adopt the provincial franchise, was disposed of. With respect to the ballot, that question will come up on the Bill to ameDd the Elections Act.


Jabel Robinson: I understand the ballot will be secret ?


The SOLICITOR GENERAL.: Oh, yes.


Jabel Robinson: All right.


The SOLICITOR GENERAL.: As far as my judgment goes, that is the principle upon which we have gone for the last two years.


Mr. INGRAM.: In the electoral district of Nipissing when the government changed the date of last election the voters' lists for Nipissing were prepared the same as tney would be prepared for any ordinary township, and as other electoral districts in Canada used lists that were nor prepared in 1900 but prepared previously, how does it come that the government by order in council changed the date of the election in Nipissing ? The hon. gentleman from Nipissing (Mr. McCool) is elected on a list prepared less than sixty days previous to the election, and that being so, surely his election must be illegal. I wish to know from the Solicitor General why an order in council was passed changing the date of the election.


The SOLICITOR GENERAL.: I would not like to sit in judgment upon what has been decided by the Ontario courts in respect to the Nipissing election, and no opinion I would express would have any effect as against that judgment. It involves a question of fact as to which we cannot agree. So far as my knowledge goes there are unorganized territories in the Nipissing district within which the electoral lists must be made at a time fixed by the Lieutenant-Governor in Council, and these are made at certain periods previous to the election. It was in consequence of the electoral lists in these particular districts not having been ready that the returning officer reported to the government that he did not have lists which would enable him to carry on the election.


Andrew B. Ingram: That only applies to cases where they have a registration list and not ordinary lists. The Nipissing list was prepared in 1898, and that being so, surely it does! not come under the Franchise Act of the Dominion which says that lists prepared under the Registration Act must not be older than twelve months. If it does not come under the Registration Act it applies in the ordinary way as in a municipality iu which there is no registration list at all. So far as the Solicitor General sitting in judgment on the decision of the courts goe^, I submit that it is our duty as repress
sentatives of the people, when we discover a defect in the election law, that we should set it right so that this kind of thing would not occur in the future. It does seem to me as a layman and from the consideration I have given the Election Act, that an unfair and undue advantage has been taken of the electors of the Nipissing district for the purpose of party gain and for no other object.


Robert Laird Borden: I do not think that the Solicitor General apprehends what the judgment in the Nipissing case was or he would not have answered my hon. friend (Mr. Ingram) as he did. The only thing decided in that case was, that on account of the returning officer hiding himself on nomination day, no nomination could be effective. The judges did not discuss the question as to whether or not there was a legal postponement, because that did not come before them. Therefore, the question put by thei hon. gentleman (Mr. Ingram) is entirely relevant. I think it would puzzle the Solicitor General to show any authority in the Governor in Council or any one else to postpone that election under the circumstances. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Fitzpatrick) may have an opportunity before the session is over of giving us some information on that point, if he can. I would like to ask the hon. gentleman what he intends to cover by the words ' or were last in force.' The objection raised by my hon. friend from Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) is well worth considering. The lists are either in force or not in force on the day of the writ. It may be that some reason for these words has escaped my attention, but for the present I cannot see that the words ' or were last in force' will do anything extept possibly create a doubt in the mind of some officer as to what lists he should use.


The SOLICITOR GENERAL.: My hon. friend (Mr. Borden, Halifax) will bear in mind that these words are merely a repetition of the section of the statute as we now have it. There is absolutely no change. There must have been some reason for the words, because the matter was fully discussed in the House, and I have no doubt it was explained to the satisfaction of my hon. frienck


Robert Laird Borden: There were several things in this Franchise Act that were not explained toj my satisfaction. A great many inaccuracies occurred in the statute as passed which none Of us seem to have noticed, or which if they were noticed were not corrected. This may be one of them. I hardly think it is a sufficient answer for the Solicitor General to say that there must have been some reason in 1898 which none of us can now recall. The question is : Whether we have any reason now. I am not raising this point out of any factious desire to have it changed, but I suggest to the Solicitor General that these words may eon-

[DOT]2787

[DOT]fuse the officer. Do not these words give him an alternative, and will he not stop to *consider whether he has to use the lists which are in force on a particular date or the lists which having regard to that particular date were last previously in force ? I venture to think that these words will create a doubt and can serve no useful purpose.


The SOLICITOR GENERAL.: I am quite certain they do serve a useful purpose. 1 am prepared at present merely to explain the changes in the law and I cannot give the reason for this now. There is no reason why we should dispose of the Bill to-day, and 1 will explain the matter when we get into committee again.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: The language of the section is ; were last in force under the laws of that province for the purposes of a provincial election.' It is possible that some officer might think he had a choice between the lists in force at the date of the Dominion writ, or the lists that were in force at some Immediately previous provincial election.


The SOLICITOR GENERAL.: I am quite sure I shall be able to make it quite clear to my hon. friend that there is really no ambiguity about it, and that it is not intended to leave it to the returning officer to decide which list lie shall use in an election-because that would be utterly incongruous.


Mr. NORTHRUP.: I would like to call the attention of the Solicitor General to one practical result which might result from this law. At the present time the lists in use are those in force sixty days prior to the isue, of the writ ; and in the province of Ontario it is quite possible that a county judge, before whom an appeal has been taken, might have given his decision only a day or two before the issue of the writ, in which case it would be impossible in all probability to get copies of the voters' list until within a few days of the election. The hon. gentleman will understand that it takes some time after the county court judge gives his decision, to get the voters' list printed in Ottawa. I have always supposed that was one reason why the sixty days were allowed under the present law, and that provision has been an advantage in that respect. In the last election I had some difficulty in getting my lists from some municipalities ; and if an election happened to come on in October or November in any year, there would certainly be a great deal of difficulty In many constituencies in the province of Ontario if the lists used were as provided by this clause, no time being allowed for printing. If the hon. gentleman objects to sixty days, perhaps a compromise might be struck by saying thirty days.


The SOLICITOR GENERAL.: The sixty days were put in the Bill when introduced so as to prevent the local government tam-Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).
pering with the lists previous to the election ; but, that provision was found to work so disadvantageous^ in many parts of the country that lists over a year old had to be used. The desire of everybody, it seems to me, is that we should have the ireshest lists available for use in an election. My hon. friend says that it is possible that an appeal may not be disposed of by the county judge until shortly before the date of the election. My hon. friend will bear in mind that the list to be used is me list in force at the date of the issue of the writ.


William Barton Northrup: I am speaking from my own experience when I say that it takes a certain time to get the list printed. I only wish to have sufficient time allowed for that purpose. Perhaps a fortnight would be enough. In the months of October and November these courts are being held in the province of Ontario, and it is perfectly certain that there would be a number of constituencies in which the judgment would be given only a day or two before the writ was issued. The result would be that one side or the other, certainly one side, would have to go into the campaign without any voters' list, and I am sure the hon. gentleman would not wish to subject even an opponent to such a hardship as that.


Andrew B. Ingram: I think it would be a disadvantage to us all if you abolish the sixty days. For the reasons stated by the hon. member for East Hastings (Mr. North-rup), many of the lists will not be printed, and candidates will be put to the inconvenience of using a list which lias probably been revised just two or three days before the issue of the writ, whereas the lists made up sixty days before the issue of the writ could be printed at the Printing Bureau and sent to the different candidates in time for the election. At present candidates have a great deal of difficulty with the registration lists which are prepared within a day or two of the election.


Jabel Robinson: I would like to ask the Solicitor General if it would not be possible, while he is amending the election law, to have the election held at some stated time, so that we might know when it is coming on, and if it would not be possible to have it in November, or at some time when the farmers are not very busy. Then, everybody would know six months before when the election takes place. That would be a step in the right direction, and there is no reason why it should not be done in Canada as it is in other countries. I see no reason why we should not be as advanced in Canada as they are in other countries.


The SOLICITOR GENERAL.: I have on the Order paper a Bill to amend the Election Act, and when that comes up there will be an opportunity to discuss that question.


Mr. PRINGLE.: Does this clause in any way conflict with the Ontario statute as to the registration of voters in towns and cities ? Because, as I understand this clause, the list to be used is the list in force on the day the writ is issued, while the list under the Registration Act does not come into force until some days after the issue of the writ.


The SOLICITOR GENERAL.: In the Bill to amend the Election Act, which will come up after this Bill is disposed of, I am dealing with that particular point.


William Humphrey Bennett: I quite agree with the hon. member for East Elgin (Mr. Ingram) that this is a very important question. In the province of Ontario, after the local lists are printed, courts are held by the county court judges. Then, the revised lists are returned and posted up in the office of the clerk of the peace. Assuming that a list has been corrected and is to be found in the office of the clerk of the peace on the 1st of November, then, according to the wording of this Act, that would be the list in force ; and were an election to take place on the 15th of November


The SOLICITOR GENERAL.: That could not be, because there must be thirty days at least.


William Humphrey Bennett: Assuming, then, that it would be held on the 30th of November, what would be the result ? The government candidate might see that list on file in the office of the clerk of the peace was at once sent to Ottawa ; and the government, by reason of their influence in the Printing Bureau, might see that that list was at once sent back to the riding, particularly if it were strongly in favour of the government candidate. But, another list from another riding, which was not in favour of the government candidate, might be sent to Ottawa, and might be delayed in the printing. Then, what list would be used ? I think under some clause of the Act, the list on which the election is to take place is the list furnished from Ottawa, not the list posted in the office of the clerk of the peace. The result of this change will be that the government, in the event of the date fixed for an election and the printing of the lists being close at hand, can have those lists used which they wish and suppress or delay those they do not wish to use.


The SOLICITOR GENERAL.: It is purely a question of the balance of convenience, and there are certainly conveniences resulting from either system. It seems to me that we ought to make some sacrifice in order to get a fresh list, especially as the getting of it does not bring about the result pointed out by the hon. member for Simcoe (Mr. Bennett). The returning officer is Obliged to apply to the clerk of the peace of Ontario, who is the custodian S8i
of the list, and he may possibly get a list that never reached Ottawa at all, if it is the list in force at the time of the election.


William Humphrey Bennett: There is just this disadvantage, that the clerk of the peace may not furnish the deputy returning officer a printed list at all, because the list was not prepared in time to be sent to Ottawa and printed. You will simply have a list with the names written in, which will open the door for fraud for every kind on the part of the deputy returning officer. He might, if he felt so inclined, lay that list conveniently where somebody might tear a whole page out, and those whose names were on that page could not possibly vote. Then, when the clerk of the peace gives out the list to be copied, those copying it might add names and omit names, and that is why we contended, when the present law was before the House, that the lists placed in the hands of ,the deputy returning officers, should be the printed lists issued from Ottawa.


Andrew B. Ingram: If we leave the law as it is, we will be in a better position because we will know, sixty days before the election, the exact lists which will be used, and there will not be the same opportunity to partisan returning officers and Crown attorneys to tamper with the lists.


William Humphrey Bennett: When the written list is made up in the office of the clerk of the peace, it is made up from a printed list compiled by the judge, and which the judge leaves in the office of the clerk of the peace. That list will have names written in and others scored out, and might easily be tampered with.


The SOLICITOR GENERAL.: These points were discussed very fully when the Bill was first introduced, and all these inconveniences were pointed out, but I do not think my hon. friends can find a case of the kind they have pointed out, which occurred during the last election.


William Humphrey Bennett: Because you acceded to our request to have the lists printed at Ottawa.


The SOLICITOR GENERAL.: We are not making a change in law in that respect. The lists will continue to be printed at Ottawa except such as come into force immediately before the election, and in such case you would have to apply to the legal custodian for a copy. I fail to see the probability of the frauds pointed out by my hon. friends being committed.


Andrew B. Ingram: Should an election take place, for instance, on the 7th of November, you will find, a day or two previous to the issue of the writ, several municipalities in which the lists have just been completed and others again in which they are not completed, and every candidate will have the

disagreeable task of providing' himself with the lists in these municipalities in which they were prepared a day or'two before the writ issued. AVhy not retain the sixty days, which will give amide time to have the lists printed at Ottawa, and avoid that necessity.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The same thing may happen whether you have the sixty days 'or not. In my election last year, in one of the municipalities the list of last year was used while in all the others we had to use the lists of the previous year. But although in one municipality the list had been revised before the sixty days, a certified copy had not'been sent by the judge to the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery, and consequently we had no list until a short time before the election, and I had 'to fall back on the old provincial lists until I got the new one a few days before the election. Whether the delay 'be sixty days or less, you may have the same trouble.


William Barton Northrup: Every lawyer will bear me out in saying that if an election should come on in October or November in Ontario, the very difficulty pointed out must arise in the majority of municipalities. And it would be an utter impossibility to obtain the list from 'Ottawa. Whatever drawbacks there may have been in the former Act, at least it relieved us of this difficulty. It is absolutely certain that in a majority of constituencies in Ontario, we should be driven to take the list from the office of the clerk of the peace, and whether or not he might be trusted, as suggested by my hon. friend, those who wish to face the matter honestly know that it is almost as bad to have a large proportion of the people suspecting fraud as to have fraud actually occur. I trust the Solicitor General will see his way clear to amend the Act in such a way that even suspicion of fraud will be removed.


Mr. COCHRANE.: I am sure the Solicitor General will see the importance of making some change as indicated by the hon. member for East Hastings (Mr. Northrup). Take, for instance, the village of Hastings in my county, or rather the county which I have the honour to represent


The PRIME MINISTER.: Hear, hear.


Matthew Henry Cochrane: Perhaps I have shown the same weakness that ministers show when they talk about ' my department.' I always fancied that 'their' departments did not belong to them, but that they were the servants of the people. In the riding I have the honour to represent, it was found that the list was printed in Ottawa, except for the village of Hastings. There was no revision for that village, the election taking place on a voters' list that was in the hands of the clerk of the municipality. There had been no application for a revision, and there-Mr. INGRAM.
fore the list was in the hands of the clerk unrevised for sixty days. Thus, the village of Hastings voted on a list that was a year older than the rest of the riding.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: A year younger.


Matthew Henry Cochrane: Yes, a year younger. Now, the question is : Where are we going to get the list ? Supposing that an election comes on in thirty days, the list that was in the hands of the clerk when the writs were issued would be the list on which the election would take place. How can you get that list printed in Ottawa ? The Solicitor General will see that the Printing Bureau cannot print the lists for the whole Dominion in thirty days. I am not talking from a party point of view, for this does not affect one party more than the other. No matter what side the candidate is on, it would be impossible to get the list printed in Ottawa. This only shows the absurdity of having the local legislature provide the lists for election of members of the House of Commons. We should prepare our own lists. I believe the Solicitor General intended to prepare an honest list and have an honest election law ; but, with the facts brought to .his attention, he must see that last year's Franchise Act and election law will not remedy the difficulties which I feel satisfied he intended to remedy. Frauds have been perpetrated, and I am confident that unless some provision-I do not pretend to be able to suggest anything, but I am sure the Solicitor General will see the need of some change-unless some provision is made, it will be impossible to prevent frauds in the future. .


James Clancy: We had an experience in the last election that should be a lesson to us as to adopting the proposed change. 1 address myself particularly to members on both sides from the province of Ontario, and I venture to state that not 10 per cent of new lists for 1900 were used in the last election. In Bothwell, there was but a single case in which the list for 1900 was used, and that arose out of the assessment having been changed some years ago from February to July. The election was held late in the year-the 7th November. But any hon. gentleman will see the utter impossibility of having lists prepared and printed if the work is to be done in the Printing Bureau. It was a physical impossibility in the past, and must continue to be so for the future:	There might be many reasons why the change the hon. gentleman proposes should take place, but I do not see how it will overcome the difficulty I have just pointed out, so far as the province of Ontario is concerned. This is not a party question, and I appeal to hon. gentlemen on both sides if their experience in Ontario has not been that less than 10 per cent of the lists of 1900 were used in the election,

though that election took place on the 7th November.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: The same difficulty would meet us In Quebec. For instance, if the election writ was dated between the 20th April and the 1st June, the parties interested would have the greatest difficulty in obtaining the lists, because the registrar of the county cannot possibly furnish these lists without taking on an additional staff of employees. It would be equally difficult to get the lists from the secretary-treasurers of the municipalities. The registrar for the registration division of Montreal East, who was the custodian of the list of the county of Jacques Cartier, found it impossible to con form with the provisions of section 10. If the Solicitor General will look at section 10 of the Act of 1898, he will see that it pro vides that within ten days the custodian of the lists must transmit to the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery a copy of the lists. In the ease I speak of, the custodian of the lists found it impossible to do that. Even by taking on a large additional stall of employees, which cost very dear,, he required twenty or twenty-five days before he could have the lists copied and forwarded to Ottawa. The provision which it is proposed to substitute would leave it impossible for the parties interested to procure the lists in their divisions, except at very great expense.


The SOLICITOR GENERAL.: I appreciate the fact that this is a matter that we have to consider from the standpoint of the convenience of members of the House. We need give no consideration whatever, so far as I can see, to party politics in this matter. The difficulties, as I understand the matter, are these : Our present system leads to this result, that is if you take the list in force sixty days beifoire the ettectibn, yon are liable to have election lists more than a year old. That is the inconvenience thar. has resulted from the law in its present form.


James Clancy: But the hon. gentleman (Hon. Mi'. Fitzpatrick) will not pretend that the change he proposed will overcome that difficulty.


The SOLICITOR GENERAL.: The change will, to a very large extent, obviate that difficulty. But it will bring about this other difficulty-that, instead of having lists printed in the Printing Bureau at Ottawa we should be obliged to depend on the copies of lists we get from the custodians of "the lists, the local officials. That is the question for us to consider, which of the two inconveniences are we most willing to submit to. So far as I am concerned, I have an absolutely open mind on the subject. As 1 said before, there is a portion of this section that I will refer to later on and explain. But I would like to hear all that can be said
both for and against the amendment ; I do not intend to dispose of that section to-day.


Robert Laird Borden: 
The SOLICITOR GENERAL.: I would ask the leader of the opposition to read subsection 10 which I think meets the difficulty he has suggested with respect to the lists being sent to the Printing Bureau.


Andrew B. Ingram: There is another important point that will affect our friends opposite as well as us.


The SOLICITOR GENERAL.: Nothing can affect you that does not affect us.


Andrew B. Ingram: Tlie last portion of section 10 of the Franchise Act affects us in this way : Supposing the sixty days provision is abolished, and the lists are not printed by the Printing Bureau and furnished by the government, then each candidate, in order to obtain them, would have to go to the custodian and the latter would have to comply with this provision of section 10 :
The fees to be paid for such certified copy shall be those fixed by the provincial law for furnishing such copies to applicants therefor, and if there is no fee fixed by the provincial law, it shall be 25 cents for each 100 names, including additions and descriptions, and 50 cents for the certificate.
Take my own case where there are 10.000 names, it will cost me over $20 for the list, and we all know that one copy would never do on which to conduct an election.


Mr. FRASER.: You get twenty free.


Andrew B. Ingram: No, the law cannot be carried out because the list has just came into existence. Therefore, the government would not be in a position to supply it. Then we would have to apply to the custodian who keeps the list and to pay him for it. Now, I contend it is not a fair thing that the candidate should have to pay for these. I think in the way the law stands now, the government is really the proper source to which each candidate ought to apply for lists.


The SOLICITOR GENERAL.: That is the intention of the statute as we have now got it. With respect to the lists which reach the Printing Bureau, a certain number are distributed gratis to the candidates. But I admit that when the list is to be taken from the legal custodian, who will be the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery in Ontario, then you have got to pay him regular fees for the work he does.


John Graham Haggart: I would like the Solicitor General to tell me which of the three custodians it is to whom we apply, whether to the county court judge, the officers of the municipality t6 whom he sends the list, or the clerk of the peace. That difficulty arose in my constituency. When the returning officer got the list he found out that there were three parties in the riding who were equally legal custodians of the list.


The SOLICITOR GENERAL.: So far as the province of Ontario is concerned, I understand the local Act makes the clerk of the peace the custodian of the list, but I speak subject to correction. In the province of Quebec he sends it to the clerk of the municipality and the registrar of the county.


William Humphrey Bennett: I think some lion, gentlemen do not remember the exact procedure in the province of Ontario. After the courts have been held the county court Mr. FITZPATRICK.
judge returns to the clerk of the peace the list, and in that list are the interlineations, giving the names that have been added and the names that have been struck out. That list is then in the hands of the clerk of the peace, and if an election is coming on the clerk of the peace furnishes to each deputy returning officer a written list, not a printed list at all-he furnishes him with a written list. Now, the clerk of the peace would never think of doing this work himself. He gets some one to copy this out, but the original list is in the possession of the clerk of the peace all the time, he is the custodian of at least one list, and that is the important one, because that is the one upon which the alterations will be found. In the province of Ontario it is an admitted fact that the local lists are very faulty, so faulty that there is a procedure allowing a man to vote whose name is not on the list at all. They have what is known as tender ballots, so that a man may go up and vote in a local election, even though his name is not on the list, and afterwards, on the scrutiny, that vote may be counted, provided he has a right to vote. Now, if you are going to open the door to the same thing here


The SOLICITOR GENERAL.: We are not.


William Humphrey Bennett: Well, in the very next section the hon. gentleman will find he has got something a good deal worse than tender ballots.


The SOLICITOR GENERAL.: There will be no tender ballots in my Bill.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: I would like to ask the Solicitor General, in case of the candidate having to procure a list from the clerk of tlie peace in Ontario, who is the proper custodian ? He knows that he has to pay for one copy. But he requires twenty copies, or a considerable number, in order to carry on his election. That is indispensable in the usage that prevails. How is he going to get the additional copies ? At his own expense 1


The SOLICITOR GENERAL.: If he has to apply to the custodian he has to pay the custodian for the first copy and then he makes his own copies for his own benefit at his own expense.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: That means an expenditure of several hundred dollars. I would like to know why each of the two candidates should be at the expense of several hundred dollars in order to get copies of the voters' lists that the government are bound to provide. The- government are bound to provide you with the first copy and you have no right to pay for it.


The SOLICITOR GENERAL.: That applies to those lists only that have reached Ottawa for the purpose of being printed. There will be a very small number of such lists.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: It may be a very large number. In regard to the proposal of the bon. Solicitor General to reduce the time from sixty days to thirty days, I think I am correct in saying that in the last election there would have been a very large percentage of the municipalities in which the candidates would have had to procure their lists in Ontario. Under the sixty-day limit the number was small. Each of the hon. gentlemen who have spoken have had one or more municipalities in which they had to procure the lists in that way. That was the case in my own constituency. In one small municipality the list was completed within sixty days, and therefore the list for 1900 was used. The list for 1900 should have been used in all of the municipalities, and with an assessment made in February, the lists should have been ready before the 7th of November and eligible for use, but, instead of having the lists for the election which took place on the 7th of November, 1900, the lists which were used were those that were commenced to be made and which were practically completed before the 1st of May, 1899. More than a year and a half had elapsed. The lists were necessarily old. We had just about finished the revision of the lists of 1900 before the judges of the court of revision when this election was called on, and not one of these lists was used except, as I have said, in one small municipality in my constituency. Therefore, notwithstanding the statement that the government had made that they were going to have an up-to-date list in Ontario. there was practically no up-to-date list, but the list for 1899 was used instead of the list for 1900. Then, there is the additional fact that I have already pointed out, that in the case of reducing the sixty days to thirty days, you will have a much larger number of cases in which you will have to go to the clerk of the peace for your original list, and then you will have "to go and have those lists printed at your own expense, at a cost of hundreds of dollars. which is an injustice to the candidates, because you say you will provide the voters' lists for the electors. You have to provide one list anyway and hand it to the candidate through the clerk of the peace, and you should give twenty additional copies, so that he will have a sufficient number to run his election properly. You are not doing that, but you are making it more difficult by the proposed amendment.


The SOLICITOR GENERAL.: I do not agree with the hon. gentleman. In order to get an up-to-date list, that is to say. the last possible list obtainable, there will be certain inconveniences resulting from the fact that you have to apply to the clerk of the peace to get the last list and to pay his fees for copying that list. But, then you are going to have up-to-date lists instead of lists such as we voted on in 1896, which were three or four years old.


Mr. HENDERSON.: No, no.


The SOLICITOR GENERAL.: In 189G we had no revision for three years.
Mr. HENDERSON , The lists voted on in 1890 were made in . 895.


The SOLICITOR GENERAL.: We are going to have an up-tD-date list. In order to get that it is necessary to consider two things : are we going to allow the law to remain as it is and take our chances on the old lists, or are we going to amend the law further so .as to make provision that this expenditure shall be borne by the public in the event of our being obliged to go to the clerk of the peace. It is worth our while, in order that we may get a real up-to-date list, to adopt the principle I suggest by this amendment, and make some provision whereby those who are subjected to the inconvenience of having to go to the clerk of the peace, shall not have to pay out of their own pockets for so doing.


Andrew B. Ingram: The hon. gentleman is opening the door again to a good deal of intrigue, because when you come to revise the list, if the list is in favour, we will say, of the Conservative candidate, he will do everything he can to have that list completed in order that it may be used at the election. On the other hand, if it is in favour of the Liberal candidate, he will do all he can to have it revised. Where the list is objectionable to a candidate, he will do everything possible to prevent the court of revision completing the list, in order that it may not be available for use at the election.


The SOLICITOR GENERAL.: We cannot prevent that.


Andrew B. Ingram: We can prevent it by simply having the list completed sixty days before the election.


The SOLICITOR GENERAL.: There are better reasons than those which have been given by the hon. gentleman. I am not prepared" to admit that there is intriguing in the court of revision.


Andrew B. Ingram: I am prepared to admit that there is a great deal of intriguing before the court of revision. I remember in the case of a court of revision there were six men employed to scrape up all the ap-[DOT] peals they could in order to prevent the court of revision completing the revision of the list. The same thing can occur in other parts of the country. If a man chooses to rake up a lot of appeals he is at liberty to do so, in order to prevent the court of revision completing the list in time to be used in the election. You are opening the door to intrigue by doing away with the sixty days, and you are imposing additional expense upon candidates. The proposed amendment leaves it open to parties to intrigue in order to prevent the lists being

revised, because it might give one or other party an advantage in the election. I know several constituencies where that has occurred, and it will occur again. Besides that there is the uncertainty of it. Here your friends are endeavouring to canvass a municipality, and they do not know whether to, canvass on the list about to be revised or on the list of last year. They do not know whether the list will be revised in time or not, and you are placing them in this position of uncertainty by removing the sixty days' limit. Why not leave it so that we will know that the list in force sixty days before the issue of the writ is the list that we will use, and so that we can canvass on the list that we know will .be used.


Hon. Mr. TISDALE.: I think it is impossible to get along with any shorter time than sixty days. There is only one officer, the clerk of the peace, who is bound to furnish the lists. Let us accept the Solicitor General's position.


The SOLICITOR GENERAL.: 
David Tisdale: That is not the only difficulty. I am bound to say that I am doubtful what the law is, but there is a question whether there are not three custodians of the list. The clerk of the peace is generally considered to be the legal custodian and the man that finally gets the list that may be certified. At the same time there is a list in the hands of the judge, and there may be a list in the hands of the clerk. It is a thing legislation should rectify in the province of Ontario. You can get county judges who have carefully considered the matter, and they believe there are three custodians. Thirty days after the writ issues is the usual time for an election to take place.


The SOLICITOR GENERAL.: It cannot be shorter.


David Tisdale: How are you going to get these lists printed and circulated within that time? I find it very hard work even in a longer time to get the lists in such a shape that I can hand them to the different committees in forty-five or fifty polling divisions. I guarantee that in many instances, when you go to the polling place, you do not know whether your list is correct or not. That is a very undesirable state of things.	The Solicitor General says very
truly that it -may happen, not must happen, that we will have otld lists, and that depends on the time the govern-Mr. INGRAM.
ment bring on the election. It is well known in Ontario that the lists begin to dribble in on the 1st of November and continue until the 1st of January, and if you put a provision in the law that there should be no elections held between the 1st of November and the 1st of January, we might get at it. Either do that, or say that the election shall be appointed three months after the issue of the writ instead of thirty days. As it is now, neither the candidate of one political party nor the other will be satisfied, and the candidate of the opposition must be dissatisfied, because whether the government take advantage over him or not, they have the power to do so. It is a physical impossibility to do all this within thirty days, unless clerks of the peace are empowered to have a numerous staff to get ready the lists, and one written list to a candidate is of no use whatever. I grant you this is a difficult thing to legislate upon, but we have embarked upon this principle of our franchise, and even with the best care possible, it will take us some time to get the law into such a shape that it will be fair to both parties. Do not let it go abroad, no matter what party is in power, that this law is unworkable, and that both candidates will not have a fair chance. I believe, so far as the Solicitor General is concerned, that he wants to have a fair Bill. An election contest is bad enough if we make it as short as the law allows, because it disturbs business, and all that sort of thing, and generally the result is about the same. I have considered the question very carefully, and I see no practical way, except by adopting one of the two suggestions I have made.


The PRIME MINISTER.: I submit to the House that the evils which are contemplated by the removal of the sixty days are very much magnified. Undoubtedly there may be some inconveniences. There are some inconveniences admittedly under the present system, and, as has been suggested by the Solicitor General, there will be some inconveniences, even if we adopt this section. In some cases we shall have to go to the registrar in the province of Quebec, and to the clerk of the peace in Ontario to have lists. Well, we used to do that in former times. Every member who sat in this House previous to 1886, remembers that the candidates had to go to the registrar in the province of Quebec or to the clerk of the peace in the province of Ontario to obtain the lists at his own cost. The cost was not very heavy, and if, even in rare cases, the same thing has to be done now, the cost will not be very heavy either. The Solicitor General has informed the House that he does not intend to press this Bill to-day, but that he will leave it to the consideration of members and of itihe government, and take it up at another sitting.



APKIL 11. 1901

[Stage Direction]
On section 2,
The SOLICITOR GENERAL.: The change here is very trifling indeed. The form of the oath required by the repealed section is different from that described in section 64 of the Elections Act, as the one puts the oath in the first person and the other in the second person. The intention here is to make the two oaths agree.


Hon. Mr. HAG  GART@: Do you intend to change the oath now ?


The SOLICITOR GENERAL.: No, we will do that in the Bill to amend the Elections Act.


James Clancy: This is one of the greatest difficulties we had to contend with during the last election. I know of no provision in the Act which men more honestly violated than that. I know of one case in particular in which all parties concerned consented to a man who had absolutely no right to vote, going up and voting. He came to the polls, and said. ' I lived in the riding and in the municipality, and it is a mere oversight that my name is not on the list.' He took the oath, and was permitted to vote. There was no doubt of the honesty of the returning officer and the others who allowed him to vote. There was no intention of wrongdoing from start to finish; and the slight changes which the Solicitor General proposes to make will not alter the case in the slightest. What oath is a man to take to qualify him to vote ? It is simply this : You solemnly swear that you are legally qualified to vote at this election, and that you verily believe that your name was omitted from the
list of voters by reason of-
What ? He might insert absence or that his name was overlooked or some similar reason. I think it would be infinitely better, so far as the province of Ontario is concerned at any rate, that we should drop that section altogether, rather than make provision for the few persons, if any, who would be disfranchised under the provincial Act. I am not able to call to mind any cases of Dominion officials who have been disfranchised under the provincial law. If there are any, they are very few; and it would be infinitely better that those persons should not be permitted to vote than that we (Should open the door so widely to an evil practice which has taken place from one end of the country to the other. I will venture to say that in most municipalities many votes have been honestly polled under such conditions, and they will be again if the same conditions continue to exist. I do not care how anxious municipal officers may be to conduct the elections properly, you cannot train them so as not to be liable to go wrong under the law as it stands, or under the proposal the hon. gentleman now makes. I know of no evil in connection with the law as it now stands that is productive of more serious consequences.


Mr. BARKER.: I think there cannot be any question as to the seriousness of the objection which the hon. member for Both-well (Mr. Clancy) has stated. There is no provision in this statute which is so open to abuse as this particular one. A man, by way of committing a fraud, knowing that he is not entitled to vote, or an innocent man, believing that he is entitled to be on the list, may come forward and take this affidavit and vote; and I have not the slightest doubt that hundreds of votes were jiolled in that way in the late election. The Solicitor General knows that there is not a very large class of people affected by this clause. I do not quite agree with the hon. member for Bothwell that they might be omitted from the franchise altogether, for the Franchise Act acknowledges their right to vote. But instead of providing for their voting in this way by taking a special affidavit not applicable to any one else, I would suggest to the hon. Solicitor General to provide in the Election Act a summary method of adding their names to the voters' list by application to the county judge. These" few people, who are government officers, would know when an election was coming on, and they could have an application made to the count}' judge to be put upon the list. Then they would simply take the ordinary affidavit, if required to be sworn ; and there would be no danger of others improperly getting in votes under the special oath.


The SOLICITOR GENERAL.: Hon. gentlemen must not overlook the fact that this clause is intended to meet what may be a very real and serious difficulty. It might appear to a provincial legislature desirable to disqualify a whole class of voters. This I admit is one of the consequences of our adopting the provincial franchises. While it may be that up to the present time tins provision meets only a limited number of cases, the principle involved is a very serious one, and I do not think it would be proper to place the whole of our lists under the absolute control of the provincial legislature 'without reserving to ourselves the power to correct any wrong which a provincial legislature might think proper to do. The question of the method to be adopted to meet the difficulty is one we may fairly discuss; but, as I view it at present. I would not be disposed to sacrifice the principle.


Robert Laird Borden: I would like to point out to the Solicitor General that this affidavit is framed in such a way as to lead people innocently to take it who have really no right to take it. The oath is as follows :
You do swear that you are legally qualified to vote at this election, and that you verily believe that your name was omitted from the list of voters by reason of your being at the time such list was prepared, and for no other reason.


The SOLICITOR GENERAL.: Will the hon. gentleman look at form T in the Act as we have it now ?


Robert Laird Borden: This form reads:
You swear that you are legally qualified to vote at this election and verily believe that your name was omitted.
Then there is a blank in which to fill the reason, but the difficulty is that the deputy returning officer or the voter may think that that oath would be properly filled in if the word ' absent ' were inserted or some other such reason, whereas the intention of the Act is that he should swear that his name was omitted because he was the holder of some office or was engaged in some employment or occupation which disqualified him under the local law.


David Henderson: I quite agree with the hon. leader of the opposition that it is very important the form of this oath should be changed. No doubt serious mistakes occurred in the last election by reason of persons not on the list claiming to be entitled to vote on taking this oath. I have in my mind two constituencies which, I believe, are now represented differently from what they would have been had it not been for this oath. In the earlier part of the session l carefully thought out the matter and drafted and introduced a Bill which was advanced to the second reading, and then allowed to stand, at the request of the leader of the government, on his assurance that the matter would be dealt with by the hon. the Solicitor General in his Bill to amend the election law. But I find the hon. gentleman's Bill does not provide a remedy, and I propose, when we come to the election law, to move the following amendment, which I hope the hon. the Solicitor General will accept :
You swear or solemnly aflirm that you are legally qualified to vote at this election and verily believe that your name was omitted from the lists of voters by reason of your being :-
A.	A holder of any office.
B.	A person employed in any capacity in the public service of Canada or any of the provinces.
C.	A person belonging to or engaged in any profession, calling or occupation.
, , R Belonging to any class of persons who, though possessed of the qualifications generally required by the provincial law, are by such law declared to be disqualified by reason of their belonging to such olass.
In this oath there is no blank space left in which some fictitious reason might be inserted such as being overlooked or absent. The whole space is filled up so that only the reasons assigned by section 6 of the Franchise Act of 1898, or one or more of these reasons, can he assigned by the voter why he is entitled to vote although his name is not in the list.
I also make this provision to enable him to vote :


Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).: 5. If his name has been omitted from the list of voters on account of some disqualifying provision of the provincial law specified in section 6 of the Franchise Act, 1S9S, he shall he entitled to vote upon his taking, or offering to take, the oath in the form T :	Provided, however, that
it shall be sufficient if any one or more of the four paragraphs (a), (b), (c) and (d) in the said form are included in such oath, the remaining paragraphs being eliminated therefrom.
A man comes to vote whose name is not on the list. The deputy returning officer tells him he can vote if he will take the oath form T. There are four reasons set forth in that oath why he should vote, and he selects which one he will swear to and eliminates the other three. No other reason can be accepted by tbe returning officer beyond the ones given, and a penalty of $500 Is to be imposed on tbe returning officer if be allows a man to vote, whose name is not on tbe list, for any other reason than those assigned in tbe amended Act. This is the amendment I propose to move when we come to the election law, and I hope the Solicitor General will accept it, even if he ehoses to adopt some other form of words, for I am not particular as to the form provided we get the substance.


William Humphrey Bennett: In tbe new Dominion Act, how many forms of oaths will there be. There are now sections T and U. Which one is it intended to do away with ?


Tbe SOLICITOR GENERAL.: Tbe intention is to amend tbe form U. We are dealing now with tbe Franchise Act, and the intention is to amend subsection (c) of section 6 so as to amend the oath


William Humphrey Bennett: That would leave section T in tbe original Act ?


Tbe SOLICITOR GENERAL.: Yes, in the Election Act. My intention is, after tbe discussion that has taken place, to amend section T to meet the difficulty pointed out by tbe bon. leader of tbe opposition and tbe bon. member for Halton.


William Humphrey Bennett: I would call tbe attention of the Solicitor General to the form U and the reading at tbe head of it.


The SOLICITOR GENERAL.: That will be provided for in tbe Election Act also.


Robert Laird Borden: Will tbe Solicitor General permit me to mention that the first part of section G seems to be very badly worded. I do not see any connection, as a matter of sense, between tbe first part and the second.


Tbe SOLICITOR GENERAL.: I remember that tbe impression made upon me when I first looked upon it was much tbe same, but if tbe hon. gentleman will read it again 1 think he will see that it expresses about what we wished to say.


Robert Laird Borden: I will read it and point out what I refer to :

No person possessed of the qualifications generally required by the provincial law to entitle him to vote at a provincial election, shall he disqualified from voting at a Dominion election merely by reason of any provision of the provincial law disqualifying him from having his name on the list.


The SOLICITOR GENERAL.: The hon. gentleman will observe that there is no ' him' after " disqualifying.' If you put in that word, it does read badly.


Robert Laird Borden: It is a little better than I thought, the word 'him' not being there, as I thought it was. It is not very clear yet, but perhaps it is not worth amending.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Since we axe trying to make the clauses as perfect as possible, I would point out, that even admitting the principle contended for by my hon. friend from Hal-ton-and I think that if that principle was adopted it would prevent many of tlu>
frauds that were committed last election, and I think the Solicitor General admits that it would make the situation clearer if the form of oath suggested by my hon. friend from Halton was* adopted-but even then we have the alternative remedy suggested by the hon. member from Hamilton (Mr. Barker). I am not quite sure whether it will be necessary to provide such machinery as he suggests, difficult and expensive as it may appear at first sight, and endeavour to make it as little expensive as possible. I was thinking of the possibility of men disqualified for some provincial reason such as registrars or men declared guilty of corrupt practices under the Election Act, obtaining some certificate or auithoriBation to vote at a Dominion election. During the last election, to my knowledge, a number of people voted who came to the polls-I do not mean to say that the deputy returning officer was in baid faith, because we all know how excited officials get in a political campaign, and on the eve of voting, filled with the importance of their functions-forty of them at one poll, and gave an affidavit that they had been disqualified from voting under the provincial law, having been found guilty of corrupt practices. And, having that affidavit, as the Solicitor General will readily understand, the deputy returning officer was obliged to admit them to vote. The precautions suggested by my hon. friend from Halton would not meet a case like that, because a person who would go to a poll and swear that he was not entitled to vote in a Dominion election because he had been disqualified in a provincial election trial would be ready to take the oath suggested by my hon. friend from Halton. Therefore, as the Solicitor General pointed out in the beginning of the afternoon, we have to meet difficulties at every step. We baidthem under the sixty days' delay-that we have under examination at the present moment-and under this section we have to determine
whether we ought not to provide extra precautions. We all know from experience that the moment a discretion is given to the deputy returning officer to admit to vote a man who is not on the list before him, no matter what oath you provide, no matter how precise it may be-it is unfortunate to have to admit it-you will find men ready to go to the poll, imported you do not know from where, ready to take that oath. It ought to be a matter for consideration whether we ought to surround the exercise of the franchise-there are only a few cases, as the hon. member for Hamilton pointed out -with these extra precautions.


Andrew B. Ingram: The object of the provision in the law' which has been referred to was to enable persons to vote in Dominion elections though disqualified under the provincial law. One of the reasons they are allowed by the deputy returning officers to take the oath and vote is to be found in subsection (c) of section 6, which seems to me unnecessary. It reads :
(c) Any person belonging to or engaged in any
profession, calling, employment or occupation

A layman acting as deputy returning officer might fairly take that to mean that a person ' belonging to or engaged in any profession, calling, employment or occupation' by taking the oath might be entitled to vote. Therefore, if the hon. gentleman is going to amend section 6, it would be well ro consider whether that subsection (c) is necessary or not. I know perfectly well that when the Franchise Act was before the House it was only intended to cover the cases of such persons as postmasters, collectors of customs, officers of the inland revenue, and, I believe, in the province of New Brunswisk, railway men, because a large number of the employees of the Intercolonial Railway were disfranchised under the provincial law. It was not intended to cover the eases of men whose names, for some other reason were not put upon the list. This section was not intended to cover a class of men of that kind. But during the last election in Ontario, in many constituencies, this section was taken advantage of in order to give these men a vote, they having taken the oath which is very imperfect.


David Tisdale: There is one strong point in the suggestion made by the hon. member for Hamilton, and which is in keeping with the principle of our legislation, that is the finality of the roll. Every suggestion that gets rid of an affidavit is a good one. We know the frauds and difficulties that used to exist, but we gradually got rid of them. I see no difficulty at all in saying that at some time after the writ is issued a man may go to some official and, after satisfying him of his right, get his name put on the roll and get a certificate. In Ontario there would be no difficulty, be-

*cause the county judge is always convenient, and he is the official that decides all the appeals, practically. I think that would meet the view expressed by the Solicitor General, that this is to meet cases that might arise hereafter where a province disqualified voters that we think should have a right to vote. We ought to take a good deal of trouble rather than acknowledge the principle that we cannot settle the question of qualification by ourselves, instead of leaving it to the provinces. For my part, I would like to get rid of any affidavit if we can do so.


David Henderson: I agree with the member for East Elgin (Mr. Ingram) with reference to the wording of paragraph (c). As the Solicitor General was kind enough to listen to what I said a short time ago, I would endeavour to press upon him the propriety, if possible, of revising those sections (a), (b), (c) and (d). I think they can he made much more definite, and worded in a way that would cover the whole ground, and yet be more easily comprehended by the ordinary voter, and by the deputy returning officer. I would like the Solicitor General to give some attention to that. I did not like to use the expressions in the amendment that I prepared, but, I had no desire to interfere with the existing law, and. consequently, used these words exactly as I found them in the Franchise Act.


Mr. HUGHES (North Victoria).: I take the liberty of drawing the attention of the Solicitor General to another defect in the present law. It was found, during the last election, that a man whose name, for instance, is John Smith, carpenter, if he happened to be down on the list as John Smith, painter, was not allowed to vote. A1 though he was prepared to take any oath put to him that he was the man. yet, the deputy returning officers throughout the riding, would not give these men ballots. There were cases where the man demanded the ballot, and the returning officer point blank refused to give him one, because he was described as a painter, for instance, or as a man of some other occupation than the one he followed, although he was evidently the same man, living in the same house, and on the same lot. There were other cases where the initials of the names did not correspond. I would ask the Solicitor General to look into that, and to provide some clause by which a man whose name purported to be on the list, should be allowed a ballot; in other words, that the returning officer would have no option in withholding the ballot. Why should the returning officer constitute himself a judge in that case ? If a man comes forward and is willing to take the oath and to abide by the consequences, let him vote.


Robert Laird Borden: In support of what has been said by my hon. friend from


David Tisdale: North Victoria, I may add that a good deal of difficulty of that kind occurred in my own county, for the reason that clerical mistakes had occurred in making a copy of the lists in the first place, and then in the printing of the lists that was done in Ottawa. There is more danger of that kind now than formerly. For example, in my constituency, about fifty electors were disqualified for those reasons. We came to the conclusion that upwards of a hundred other electors would have been disqualified except that the candidates on each side agreed that the sheriff should take this faulty list, which came from the printers here, and correct it by the local list, to which he had access. That was done in the city of Halifax, by consent of tJhe candidates. Otherwise a great many parties would have been disqualified.


James Joseph Hughes: There were six in one polling division who, although they had lived in the locality for upwards of twenty years, and were on the provincial list and the municipal list, yet when they presented themselves to the deputy returning officer and satisfied him, and satisfied the scrutineers that their names had been miscopied, the deputy returning officer would not hand them ballots.
On section 3,


The SOLICITOR GENERAL.: The only change is in the proviso. The proviso was intended to apply to a case, for instance, where a Dominion election takes place, and where there are no local lists, no provincial lists which are not more than a year old, and it is necessary to appoint Dominion officers to prepare those lists. In the event of a by-election taking place for the same electoral district within a year from the time within which these lists are made, these lists will be available for the by-election. I hope I make myself clear. If these were local lists and not more than a year old, they would be available. In the last general election we were obliged, by the Manhood Suffrage Act, to prepare lists which were prepared by the Dominion officials. This is a proviso, that, in the event of an election taking place for the electoral district within a year, these lists shall be available.


Andrew B. Ingram: Has the hon. gentleman in his mind a case that this will cover ?


The SOLICITOR GENERAL.: We might take the city of Toronto or any of the cities m Ontario to which the manhood suffrage voters lists apply. It might be that after the general election a by-election would be necessary and in that event we would have to make a new list notwithstanding that we would have a by-election possibly three months after the general election.
Progress reported.



DOMINION ELECTIONS ACT AMENDMENT.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 04) to amend the Dominion Elections Act 1900.-The Solicitor General (Hon. Charles Fitzpatrick) read the second time, and considered in committee.
On section 1,
The SOLICITOR GENERAL.: As this clause now stands the only effect is to substitute paragraph (g) of section 41 for paragraph (h). There is really no paragraph (h) in section 41, so that the amendment is merely clerical. I beg to move to amend the BilB by omitting these words in the sixth line of section 1 :	' And subsection 2,' because it is intended by this Bill to repeal subsection 2 of this Act altogether. That is the subsection which has reference to the stamp that the returning officer uses for the purpose of stamping the ballots.


Andrew B. Ingram: Do I understand the hon. gentleman to say that he is going to strike out the stamp ?


The SOLICITOR GENERAL.: Yes.


Andrew B. Ingram: Would the hon. gentleman explain why he wants to repeal this provision ? Is it not working satisfactorily ?


The SOLICITOR GENERAL.: Because I think it would be absolutely useless if we adopt the amendments I suggest here in respect to the ballot The stamp is intended for the purpose of identification. In the new form of ballot that I shall ask the committee to adopt, it is intended that we shall have the ballot numbered on the stub with a corresponding number on the counterfoil.


Robert Laird Borden: A printed number ?


The SOLICITOR GENERAL.: Yes, a printed number on the counterfoil so that there will be no doubt that the ballot that will be given to the voter can be identified when it is handed back to the returning officer as the ballot that he received, because the number on the counterfoil of the ballot must correspond with the number on the stub. Therefore, this will be unnecessary in view of the fact that there will be a great many other things that must go on the back of the ballot.


David Henderson: I am not sure that the sole object sought to be obtained by the stamp on the back of the ballot was identification. I think the particular object was to prevent what is called the floating ballot. I do not know how the hon. Solicitor General is going to protect us against that sort of thing.


The SOLICITOR GENERAL.: Not being initiated into the mysteries of the floating ballot, I would be obliged if the hon. gentleman would give an explanation of what he means.


Matthew Henry Cochrane: Call in Preston.


David Henderson: I have no doubt there are plenty of hon. gentlemen sitting on the other side of the House who are perfectly able to instruct the hon. Solicitor General, and it surprises me that a man who comes from the city of Quebec and who has gone through so many campaigns should never have heard anything about this particular kind of ballot. I think the hon. gentleman is playing the part of an innocent man. However, I merely throw this out.
I think the intention of the stamp was to prevent a larger number of ballots being given out, or getting into circulation, than actually were given out by the returning officer himself, and to provide that the genuine ballots might be identified. When we do away with that stamp what is to prevent that ? I think that the matter ought to be very fully considered before we repeal what we considered two years ago was a very important protection.
Hon. Mr. ROSS (Victoria, N.S.) I belong to a province where we have no trouble. Our system is that the ballots are counted by the returning officer, and the number of ballots polled are counted and the number of ballots on hand that have not been voted must correspond ; the whole thing comes out like clockwork. It appears to me there is an awful amount of trouble in Ontario which I am happy to say does not exist in the province of Nova Scotia.


Mr. HACKETT.: A great deal of care should be taken by this parliament to ensure that the franchise of the people shall be preserved inviolate. I ask the Solicitor General if he remembers that on the 10th of November last a ballot box was stolen between Alherton and Summerslde, and whether he has taken any action to discover the miscreant, the wretch who stole that ballot box, and who by that act endeavoured to deprive the people of West Prince of their rights and privileges as freemen of Canada.	The hon. gentleman (Mr. Fitzpatrick) is the representative in this House of the Department of Justice. What has he done ? Has he offered any reward ? Has he attempted in any way to trace that missing box ? We are here to safeguard the rights of the people and I state that an atrocious act was perpetrated at that time. What has the Solicitor General done to discover the rascal who stole that ballot box ?


The SOLICITOR GENERAL.: If there was a theft of a ballot box in Prince Edward Island, the ordinary machinery of justice in that province ought to be sufficient to enable those who suffered by that theft to detect the criminal. The theft of a ballot box after all, in one respect, is the same as the theft of any piece of goods that might belong to any individual and the culprit might be very well detected. If my hon. friend de-

sired the Department of Justice to take action, it seems to me that the Department of Justice should have keen notified at the time of this theft. I can tell my hon. friend (Mr. Hackett) that so far as my knowledge goes, the matter has never been brought under the notice of the Department of Justice.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I understand it is contemplated by this amendment to do away with the necessity of using the stamp. Personally, I am opposed to that. The stamp was a safeguard to some extent against improper ballots getting out, and I do not think that the proposal of the Solicitor General to have the stubs numbered as well as the counterfoils, will be effective to prevent wrong-doing in this respect. We know from what took place in elections in the past, that the deputy returning officer was in league with those who did the dishonest work outside, and therefore the numbering of the ballots would not prevent fraud. If the number on the stub has to correspond with the number on the counterfoil, a dishonest deputy returning officer could hurry the ballot into the box without allowing the scrutineers to see it, or perhaps the scrutineers would not think it was their business to take the trouble to look at it. If the official stamp is used, it could readily be seen by all parties, and while the stamp is not an absolute guarantee of honesty,
I believe it provides some safeguard.


Mr. ROCHE (Marquette).: Wihat was it that Influenced the government to depart from that principle which they adopted in reference to accepting the provincial franchises for the Dominion elections ? Why did the Solicitor General make an exception of the North-west Territories ? When the Election Act was originally introduced, the Solicitor General did provide for the ordinance of the North-west Territories to be accepted, just as the franchises for the different provinces were accepted. This was sent to the Senate and was amended, making an exception for the Territories. That Bill was sent back to the Senate, and it was returned the second time and accepted by the House of Commons, it being the latter end of the session. What possible reason had the present government for departing from that principle when, as they claim, they were adopting the franchises of the different provinces ? Why make an exception of the Territories ?


The SOLICITOR GENERAL.: The Territories have always had a special ordinance with respect to Dominion elections, and we have allowed that to continue. That is all.


William James Roche: You did not
accept the Territorial Representation Act.


The SOLICITOR GENERAL.: No.


William James Roche: Why not ?


Mr. FITZPATRICK.: 


The SOLICITOR GENERAL.: We allowed the Act to remain in force as heretofore. We saw no reason to make a change.


Andrew B. Ingram: The Solicitor General withdrew at its second reading that portion of his Bill which referred to the North-west Territories, leaving it as it is now.


The SOLICITOR GENERAL.: That was the objectionable part last year when we introduced the Bill.


William James Roche: Did not the Solicitor General himself favour that


The SOLICITOR GENERAL.: I *do not remember what I favoured last session; that was previous to the election.


Edward Hackett: I am astonished to hear that the Solicitor General places the stealing of this ballot box on the same footing as the loss of a barrel of flour from a freight train. Here we had in that polling division the ballots of two hundred freemen of the Dominion of Canada, and that ballot box was stolen. The whole matter is in charge of the government of Canada. Not only the returning officer and the deputy returning officer, but the railway officials, are all under the control of the government of Canada, and between Alberton and Summer-side, one box was found to be stolen when the ballots were called on for a recount. There was a majority of thirty-three for me in that ballot box. The miscreant, the wretch who stole that box, knew well that if the judge would take a partisan view of it, and not having these ballots before him, that I would be counted out, and would not be here to-day to represent the people of West Prince. The Solicitor General places the stealing of that ballot box in which you had the rights, the franchises of two hundred freemen of the Dominion, on the same level as the loss of a barrel of flour on the railway. The railway officials would compensate for the loss of a barrel of flour or a cask of sugar or of molasses. But how are they going to repay the honest freemen of Canada for the loss of two 'hundred sacred votes. Sir, they have not sufficient money in the treasury of Canada, with all their surpluses, to repay the people for that Joss.
I ask the government; I ask the Solicitor General, representing in this House the Department of Justice, what action has he taken ? Nothing has been done to bring this thief to justice. No reward has been offered. The ballot box has been stolen, the ballots have been taken away, and these men were supposed to have been deprived of their rights and liberties as British freemen. When we are passing legislation of this kind, I ask the government to put a stop to that machine that is working all over Canada. It is a part of the machine that was working In the province of Prince Edward Island. I had occasion a few days ago to bring to the attention of the House

the fact that a man from La Patrie office was down working in Prince Edward Island for a few months prior to the last election. That man was on the train that evening watching everything when the ballot hox was stolen, and I solemnly and sincerely believe that that individual, being part of the machine that is working from the Atlantic to the Pacific, stole the ballot box, with the intention of depriving me of my seat and electing a supporter of this government. We only ask for justice and fair-play at the hands of the government, and that where a man honestly records his vote, that vote shall be counted in favour of the candidate for whom it is cast.


William James Roche: I have a Bill before the House to make certain amendments to the Election Act, particularly as regards the North-west Territories ; and if the Solicitor General will look at that Bill between now and the next time his Bill is taken up, and will adopt some of the amendments there proposed, he will save me the trouble of going on with it. It deals with certain grievances growing out of the late election which ought to be remedied.
Progress reported.
At six o'clock, House took recess.
After Recess.
House resumed at eight o'clock. DOMINION LANDS ACT AMENDMENT.
Bill (No. 29) to amend the Dominion Lands Act (Hon. Mr. Sifton), read the second time, and considered in committee.


The MINISTER OP THE INTERIOR (Hon. Clifford Sifton).: I will explain briefly to the committee the different sections of the Bill. The first clause is for the purpose of enabling the minister to appoint an officer of the department to take the place of the Commissioner of Dominion Lands and sign documents in the absence of the commissioner. It has been customary for a number of years, when the commissioner has been away, for one of the other officers of the department to act in his place ; but a legal firm in a certain case has thrown a doubt upon the power of another officer to do so in the absence of a statutory provision, and I desire to put the question beyond a doubt by the amendment. The second clause is for the purpose of making the following change. At present, when a person makes a homestead entry, he is required by the Act within six months to prove the entry, otherwise it is void. As a matter of practice. it has never been customary to insist on that provision, and in order to bring the uniform practice of the department into accord with the law. I desire to have this clause amended so that the entry will not be void unless it is so declared by the minister. As to tlie third clause, I intend to ask to have the first two paragraphs struck out. The third paragraph has this effect. Two or three years ago a Bill was introduced by tlie then member for Western Assiniboia, providing that under certain circumstances the having of stock and corresponding improvements on a homestead should entitle a homesteader to a patent, in place of the usual cultivation conditions. This was to meet the case of persons who devoted themselves to raising stock instead of grain. The Bill of the hon. gentleman, which I accepted, required that one acre should be cultivated. That has been found to be of no value and vexatious, because in some cases the homesteader has been entitled in every other respect to a patent. Therefore, as a matter of convenience, I think it well to strike that out. Section 4 I will ask to have struck out as being unnecessary. Section 5 refers to a set of provisions in the Dominion Lands Act under which companies were authorized some years ago to make advances to settlers and to take liens on their homesteads. The plan did not prove to be a success, and has been more or less a source of embarrassment ever since. The majority of the settlers who came in under that plan did not turn out to be successful. But we have had to administer these clauses of the Act, and there were cases in which it was necessary to issue the patents to the companies which advanced the money. Some cases occurred in which there was no statutory provision for the issue of the patent, because the settler in whose name it had to be issued was not a British subject. Of course, under the ordinary law the patent cannot be issued unless the applicant is a British subject ; but when he has fulfilled the conditions, made his application and then left the country without liquidating the claim of the company which advanced money to him, and without taking out naturalization papers, the only way to enable the company to realize upon their security is to take authority to issue the patent without requiring the patentee to become a British subject. I would ask that section 6 be struck out. The effect of section 7 is to enable the minister to execute leases of Dominion lands when authorized by the regulations, without having to execute these leases under the great seal. That is simply a matter of departmental convenience and there is no object to be served in execut* ing the leases under the great seal. Section 8 is for the purpose of enabling all persons owing money to the Crown for or on account of Dominion lands to secure the benefit of the reduction in interest from 6 to 5 per cent, which was made under the Act of last session.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Is there at present any commissioner of Dominion lands, or is this entirely a new function ?
2815	COMMONS	2816
The MINISTER OF THE INTERj.uK. The office of commissioner of Dominion lands has been a statutory office for ten or twelve years. It has been customary for another officer to sign the name of the'commissioner in his absence. I am not at all sure that this is not authorized by the Act, but a legal firm has raised the question, and I ask to have it made clear.
On section 2,


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: Under the present Act if a homestead entrj is not perfected within six months, it be: comes void. We have many applications for extensions of time, and this is to relieve the department of considerable work caused by these applications, by providing that the entries shall not become void by the mere lapse of time alone but that alter the six months have elapsed the minister must declare the entries void before the lapse oi' time takes effect.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I notice a good deal of work is thrown on the department by applications to have the time extended. I have sent in a number myself, but the question is whether this amendment would not leal to a greater abuse in another direction, by allowing people to hold lands indefinitely.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I do not see any provision for giving notice to the homesteader before the minister declares his entry void.


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: The power of the minister to declare it void only comes after the expiration of the six months, so that the homesteader has still as much time as he has now.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: But still he will have no notice.


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: In every case thirty days notice is given before any action is taken affecting the entry. What the hon. member for East Grey said is perfectly true with regard to the early development of the North-west when many people went in and took up lands solely for speculation, but that practice has gone out of existence altogether, and the officers of the department are satisfied that this change will facilitate the administration of the Act.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Would not this tend to revive the system ? Trouble like this arose : A man went from Ontario intending to settle in that country and took up land, but afterwards returned to Ontario, and, owing to business affairs or some other cause, was unable to go back.' He found some person going into the country and sold his claim for a consideration. In the meantime, some one had applied for the cancellation of his title, and the party who had paid the consideration found some one else on the land.
that he was badly used, and the man who got it thought he was entitled to it.


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: The party who bought it had no right to buy it.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: No legal right, but there seemed to be some sort of a moral right, since the original claimant's right had not been cancelled. I fear that this will revive the same system-not to the same extent, but to some extent at least.


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: I did not explain the latter part of this clause. The third subsection of section 36 of the Dominion Lands Act says :
Provided further, that in the case of immigrants from elsewhere than the North American continent the Governor in Council may extend the time for the perfecting of entry to twelve months from the date thereof.
It has been found unsatisfactory to confine that to immigrants from elsewhere than the North American continent. We are receiving a large number of settlers from the United States, and it is sometimes desirable thait they should, be brought within the same category. So, it is proposed to make the clause read thus :
3. Provided further, that in the case of any immigrant the time for perfecting his entry may be extended by the minister for any period not exceeding one year from the date upon which he obtained such entry.
I doubt if this is absolutely necessary, in view of the amendment made in the former provision, but it will make it clear.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I notice that you substitute 'minister ' for ' Governor in Council.' Why is that ?


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: It is absolutely useless ito have this go ito the Governor in Council, and it has ithe 'disadvantage of hanging up the departmental business. It is impossible for the Governor in Council to consider such applications as that. As a matter of fact, in the administration of the Dominion Lands Act, one of the greatest sources of embarrassment is the number of cases that have to go to the Governor in Council. I am naturally indisposed to have the responsibility upon the minister rather than upon the Governor in Council, but, in such matters it is imipoisisible for the members of the government to enter into the merits of the case, and they must take the opinion of the minister on that subject.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The only difficulty would be that it seems to leave a great power in the hands of the minister, should be choose to use it, as between friend and foe


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: I remember having a number of these cases to discuss with the department. The party who paid money for the location claimed Mr. MONK.
If the hon. gentleman (Mr. Sproule) takes the least objection to it, I have no objection to changing it.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I have not said that I take serious objection to it. I am only suggesting what might take place.
On section 5,


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: Section 44 of the Dominion Hands Act closes with these words :
-and thereafter the said charge shall become a statutory mortgage on such homesteads.
As I explained, when a settler has failed to take out his patent, we are authorized by the Act, in certain cases, to issue the patent to the company. This, however, is a case where the settler has fulfilled the conditions, and we are providing for the issue of the patent to the settler. In such case, the claim of the company that advanced the money becomes a lien upon the land. The law clerk, in drawing a section, made it read :
-and thereafter the said charge shall become a statutory mortgage on such homestead.
I do not see the necessity for that. It should be left as it was in the original legislation, and leave the charge as a lien upon the homestead.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: What is the object of having a patent issued in the name of the settler when he has left the country ?


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: He has fulfilled the conditions, and if the land should sell for more than the amount advanced, the settler's representatives are entitiled to it.
On section 7,


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What was the original law with regard to this ?


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: The corresponding section in the Act of 1894, is as follows :
The Governor in Council may authorize the sale or lease of any lands vested in Her Majesty which are not required for public purposes, and for the sale or lease of which there is no other provision in the law. The expression ' lands ' in this section means real property of any kind, or any interest therein.
That definition is the usual one, and is in the present Act. This provision would have the effect of enabling the Governor in Council to make general regulations for the distribution of certain classes of land, but when leases are made in pursuance of the regulation, the leases need not be executed under the great seal. That is the only effect of it.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I want to ask the minister if these words: ' For the sale or lease of which there is no other provision in the law ' would allow lands to be put up at auction?


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: No. The invariable rule is that the first person who applies gets the lease upon terms SO
fixed by order in council. That has not been changed for many years. The same with homesteads.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I find the same objection to this that I found in the other, that is that what the law allowed to be done by the Governor in Council is here done by the minister.


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: It is impossible for any minister to make an examination of all the files to see whether they are all regular, and he must depend upon his officers. Indeed I may say that this particular amendment is made largely owing to the continual remonstrance of my colleagues. It is impossible for any minister to go into details of matters of that kind.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Could not the minister meet the objection by a proviso that the Governor in Council, when authorizing the sale or lease of any lands, should fix a minimum price ?


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: Certainly.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: But that is not mentioned in the section.


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: Of course the regulations specify the terms and conditions. I have no objection to saying that the regulations shall specify the price.
On section 8,


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I understand there are many outstanding leases for grazing and other lands which were rented, and in all probability many of the payments remain unpaid. Will the payments that accrued up to that time be calculated on the higher rate of interest, or on the lower rate of interest ?


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: I will look at the section again and see whether the point is covered.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: There is a proviso in the statute we passed last year which says :
Provided that the change in the rate of interest in this Act shall not apply to liabilities existing at the time of the passing of this Act.
The disposition of section 8 is very general.


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Sproule) will see that it is perfectly specific. If my hon. friend will look at page 3 of the Bill, commencing with the fourth line, he will see that it says :
The rate of such interest from the 7th day of July, 1900, the date upon which chapter 29 of that year came into force, shall be 5 per cent per annum.
I think that covers everything.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: It is not perhaps apropos, but it might not be amiss to ask the hon.



COMMONS ' 2820

[Stage Direction]
minister if lie lias any knowledge of wliat tlie outstanding claims are in regard to mining leases, grazing leases and timber lands. Perhaps he could tell ns whether the collections are pretty well kept up to time or whether there is a large accumulation ot arrears in these claims.
The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: Every year a notice is sent out to the farmers giving the exact amount that is due.
Bill reported, read the third time, and passed.


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: I could not give any general statement, bir. it would be a very simple matter for me to have a statement prepared which 1 will lay on the Table of the House in a couple of days if the hon. gentleman desires it.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: That would do. I do not expect that the minister will have it with him, but it would be interesting if the minister would prepare such a statement.


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: There is no difficulty whatever about it. It is a very simple matter to find it in the records of the department. I would like to say, however, to the hon. gentleman that there is one class of the outstanding liabilities of the government which I have never pressed at all, which I have never made any effort to collect, because I have not been able to see any object in doing so ; that is to say, the money that is owing by farmers on account of pre-emptions. The land is becoming more valuable all the time, the government has been getting 0 per cent and when this Act comes into force it will get 5 per cent which is more than the money costs the government. As the land is becoming more valuable I think there is no object in pressing the farmers to pay this money if they are unable to do so without embarrassing themselves. From my own experience in the North-west I know that on account of the pressure that was put ou the farmers some years ago many of the farmers were obliged to mortgage their property simply to pay the government claim when the government did not need the money. The government are getting more interest from them than they are paying for the money.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Do they pay the interest ?


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: Yes, we endeavour to( see that the interest is paid as rapidly as possible, but as to the principal the security is getting better all the time and there is no object in pressing them.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I do not think there would be any object in forcing payment, nor do I think it would be right as long as a man is on his homestead and cultivating his land. I tliiuk it should be allowed to run the same as it is in the province of Ontario. I think it would be very unreasonable to force the payment on the preemption as long as the man is there and cultivating his land.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: UNORGANIZED	TERRITORIES-GAME



PRESERVATION ACT.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 46) to amend the Unorganized Territories Game Preservation Act, 1894.- the Minister of the Interior (Hon. Clifford Sifton), read the second time and considered in committee.
The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: The Act that we are amending has reference to the protection of game in the unorganized portion of the North-west Territories, the far northern part which is not organized, or represented in the North-west Territories Legislative Assembly. The section as it is in the original Act is as follows :
Any beast, bird or eggs in respect of which, or of any part of which, any conviction has been made under this Act, shall be held to be thereby confiscated, and the authority who has made the conviotion may make such disposal of them as he thinks fit. They may be kept for his own use, but shall not be sold or exported.
The provision in the last line, is, in my judgment, very objectionable. We had a case not long ago in which the officer who made the conviction kept the pelt of the animal, in respect to which the conviction was made, for his own use. Great fault was found, and it was thought that the effect of the punishment was very largely done away with by the fact that the convicting magistrate kept the pelt for his own use. I disapproved of it, but when I looked up the Act I found that it authorized the magistrate to do what he had done, and that the magistrate had only done what the Act permitted. I propose to have it amended as follows :
All animals, birds, fish or eggs, or the pelt, skin or head of any animal, killed, trapped, snared or taken in violation of any provision of this Act, or any part of such animal, bird, fish, pelt, skin or head, shall, after the conviotion of the person who so killed, trapped, snared or took the same, respectively, be confiscated to the Crown by the authority who made the conviction

Practically that is the same as anything else that is taken under a conviction.
-who shall have power to declare the same so confiscated, and to order the sale or destruction thereof, and, If sold, the proceeds thereof shall be deposited and applied In the manner provided by section 15 of this Act; provided, that such convicting authority may give or direct any animal, bird, fish or egg so confiscated, or any part of such animal, fish or bird, to be given to any religious, charitable or scientific institution or purpose, as in his discretion seems proper.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: It seems to me that under that section the convicting authority might very well continue to appropriate the animal or the skin to himself.


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: Under what clause ?


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Under the wording of the section which says that he can devote it to some charitable purpose. These North-west men are very ingenious and they might say it was a charitable purpose to keep the skin for themselves.


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: We have correspondence in the department from scientific institutions in the United States and Europe, asking for a specimen, if an animal or bird of a certain description is found, and we exchange specimens in that way. Suppose we say that it should only go to scientific institutions.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Very good.


Jabel Robinson: I would ask the minister to put the word ' school ' In there before the word ' purpose.'


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: Very well.
Bill reported, read the third time, and passed.



SUPPLY-APPOINTMENT OF .TUDGES IN ONTARIO.

[Stage Direction]
The PRIME MINISTER (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier) moved that the House go into Committee of Supply.
['Agriculture.']
William Humphrey Bennett: Before you leave the Chair, Mr. Speaker, I wish to call the attention of the government to an article that appears in the Toronto News relative to the judiciary of Ontario. At the outset I may say that there are fifteen Superior Court judges in that province, and these are distributed in four different courts. We have first, the Court of Appeal composed of the chief justice and four puisne judges ; then the Chancery division with a chief justice and three iruisne judges; and then the King's Bench and Common Pleas divisions .similarly constituted. About eight months ago on the retirement of Sir George Burton, Chief Justice of the Court of Appeal, Justice Armour was promoted to the position and that left a vacancy in the King's Bench division. That vacancy has existed ever since. It is true that the government made an honest and strong effort to fill the vacancy, because it is well known that Mr. J. J. Foy, K.C., of Toronto, was proffered the position, but he for reasons best known to himself saw fit to decline. The fact that the vacancy has been allowed to exist for so long results in very great detriment and inconvenience to suitors. Under the procedure of our courts, on 891
action may be brought before one of the judges of the King's Bench division without a jury, and if one of the parties feels aggrieved by the judgment he may appeal, and his appeal will come in due course before that very same division. He has the adverse decision of the trial judge against him and his appeal comes before that very same judge again. Associated with the trial judge will be another justice of tfie court, and if the court divides in its opinion the appellant is left where he originally stood. If the vacancy were filled and there were three judges this could not occur. Again, there are certain actions in the High Court in which an appeal is not permitted to the court of appeal, If the litigant in such a case found himself with the two judges divided, and he then had the right to go to the court of appeal, his position would not be so bad, but he is debarred from going to the court of appeal and thus the unfortunate suitor lias to (face the judge who lias given an adverse decision against him. There was. for instance, what is known ns the West Durham case. In that case Chief Justice Falconbridge and Judge Street took different views, and the result was that the action was a nullity, and had to go to the Supreme Court. Had there been three judges in that court, two of them would of necessity have had the same opinion as against one, and that judgment might have been accepted and the case terminated. The Evening News says this, that the following notice has been posted at Osgoode Hall :
In consequence of it having become necessary for one of the judges to take the business assigned to the Hon. Mr. Justice Meredith, it has been found impracticable to continue the sittings of the divisional court this week.
If, however, there be any case of special urgency, a court may be specially constituted to hear it. Otherwise, no further sittings of the divisional court will. be held this month. By order of the court.
Fancy the position that these suitors are placed in. Take a case involving the ownership of a large quantity of saw-logs. It might be necessary at this time of the year to get these logs down the streams while the water is high, but owing to the fact that an injunction may be pending neither party can touch the logs, and great loss may result. This kind of thing will go on unless the government rises to the occasion. This government boasts that it is a strong government, and surely a strong government ought not be under the necessity of keeping a judgeship dangling before its friends in the province of Ontario for eight months. When the lamented death of Judge Rose caused a vacancy, an appointment was speedily made in the person of Mr. Justice Lount, and I may say that the appointment of that gentleman has given a very great deal of confidence to the bar of the province. But why this other vacancy

should be kept dangling for eight months it is hard to surmise. Had Mr. Foy accepted the position, he would have relieved the government from the trouble they find themselves in. I presume that the government has many applicants for the position, but I point out that it is humiliating to see what is going on in reference to this matter when it has been stated in the public press that petitions have been hawked about Toronto asking lawyers to sign them for the appointment of certain gentlemen to the bench.
That cannot do otherwise than bring the judiciary into disrepute, not only in the province of Ontario, but in other provinces as well ; for I have recently seen the statement in a Montreal paper that a judicial vacancy has existed in the province of Quebec for some time, and that a member of this House has threatened to resign if an appointment is made not to his liking. In view of the condition in which litigants find themselves in the province of Ontario, anld in view of the fact that the present condition of things is demoralizing to the opinion in which the judiciary is held by the public, I trust, now that the attention of the government has been called to the matter, that they waill announce that an appointment to the vacant position will speedily be made. I do not know who the fortunate gentleman may be. It is true, this government have evinced a disposition to confine the judicial appointments in the province of Ontario to their political friends. That was not always the case. The government of Sir John Macdonald appointed Mr. Samuel Blake and Mr. Justice Maclennan to the bench, and, I believe, the late Chief Justice Moss, a Liberal, was also appointed by a Conservative administration, though I am not sure as to that. In view of the statements which have been made in the press, and in view of the fact that the business of the courts is congested, I trust that the government will make an appointment to the vacant position at a very early day.


The PRIME MINISTER (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier).: I have to express my regret that my hon. friend did not give me' any notice of' bis intention to bring this important question to the attention of the government. If I had been so notified, I would have informed myself as to the exact condition of judicial matters in the province of Ontario. I shall, therefore, have to answer only with such knowledge as I have. And at the outset I can say from the hon. gentleman's own statement, that I do not think the government are so guilty as he wants to represent them to be. My hon. friend, at the close of his remarks, said that this government had evinced a disposition to appoint to the bench only their political friends, whereas, in the earlier portion of his remarks. lie had stated, with equal emphasis, that this government had offered an appoint-


William Humphrey Bennett: ment to Mr. Foy, who is not a friend of the government, but an opponent. At all events, I think my hon. friend will agree with me that since this government have been in office the appointments made to the bench in the province of Ontario have not caused the admitted high standing of that bench to deteriorate. The last appointment made, that of Mr. Justice Lount, has given satisfaction to the bar of Ontario. We thought it would, and that is one reason why we made that appointment. The fact of our having offered, as my hon. friend states, an appointment to Mr. Foy. shows that the government have no inclination whatever to hawk about judicial appointments among their political friends; and the appointment we afterwards made of Mr. Justice Lount shows that the government have some regard to the character of the men to whom they entrust that high judicial office. As to the present position of judicial matters in the province of Ontario, so far as my memory goes, no complaints have been made of the vacancy still existing, caused by the retirement of Mr. Justice Burton. If complaints have been made-I will not say they have not-at least they have not come to my ears. Although I cannot say I look very carefully into these matters, as they do not belong to my immediate office, still I look Into them with sufficient care to be pretty well informed ; and I really believe that If any complaint had been made I would have known of it, and the government would have taken some action. The article which hais been quoted by my hon, friend is the first intimation which I have had that the need of an immediate appointment has been felt; and this is felt, perhaps, as much from the unfortunate illness of Air. Justice Meredith as from the retirement of Mr. Justice Burton. At all events, it is part of the duty of the government to see that an appointment is made. I would only add another word, and it is with regard to the hon. gentleman's statement that petitions are being signed in the city of Toronto.


William Humphrey Bennett: I said they were hawked about at one time, before a certain appointment was made-and it was quite current in the newspapers-not at the present time.


The PRIME MINISTER.: I do not know whether any petitions were circulated. The hon. gentleman may have information on that subject which I have not; but, if petitions were circulated at one time, asking for the appointment of this gentleman or that gentleman, it was a most unseemly thing ; but my hon. friend will give us this credit, that if there were such petitions, they had no effect at all on the government. I do not know what the hon. gentleman has in his mind as to the object for which petitions were circulated ; but, I am quite sure of one thing, that no appointment was made

in the province of Ontario because of any petitions being signed in favour of Mr. So-and-so or Mr. So-and-so. This ought to satisfy my hon. friend that the government are not reproachable in that respect. But, the question my hon. friend has brought up is a quite proper one to bring to our attention, and it must engage our attention.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: In this connection, 1 might ask the right hon. gentleman if there is going to be a delay to the same extent in the appointment of some one to replace Mr. Justice Ouimet in our province, at Sorel ?


The PRIME MINISTER.: I do not know what my hon. friend means. I am sorry to see that my hon. friend, who is an important member of the bar in the province of Quebec, is so ill-informed as not to know that Mr. Justice Ouimet has been replaced two months ago by Mr. Justice Fontaine.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House went into Committee of Supply.
Patent Record, $12,000.
Mr. SPIiOULE. How does the hon. gentleman account for the increase of $2,000 in this item ?
['I do not know what my hon. friend means. I am sorry to see that my hon. friend, who is an important member of the bar in the province of Quebec, is so ill-informed as not to know that Mr. Justice Ouimet has been replaced two months ago by Mr. Justice Fontaine.']
The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Owing to the increased number of patents issued during the past year, the Patent Record is a larger volume and the Printing Bureau has charged more.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: How do the fees collected compare with the expenditure ?	[DOT]


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: The receipts for patent fees go into the consolidated revenue, and the expenditure is regulated by the number of clerks employed and the amount necessary to carry on the business of the office. Roughly speaking, the receipts are something over $100,000 a year, and the expenditure about $30,000 a year.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I see that the models are kept in one building down on 'Sparks street, while the patent office is on the third fiat of .the Langevin block. Is it the intention of the government to continue this arrangement ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: The models used to be in the upper part of the Langevin block, but after the fire in the Western block it was found that there was a similar danger of Are in the Eastern iblock. the upper part of which is largely occupied by the Department of the Interior. It was therefore found necessary to furnish better accommodation for many of the important records of the Interior Department, and my hon. colleague, the Minister of Public Works, asked me whether we could not spare the model rooms in the Langevin block for that purpose. I found that for years back, models were no longer required from applicants for patents, and that models
were no longer used by the patent examiners. It did not therefore seem necessary or wise to continue using the spacious departments in the upper part of the Langevin block for these models, which were no longer of practical use, and I advised the Minister of Public Works to that effect. We therefore engaged rooms in a building on Sparks street, where we put on exhibition the most interesting models, and they are there at present. I have, however, advised the Minister of Public Works that it is no longer necessary, so far as the requirements of the department are concerned, to keep even those models on exhibition, and he is at liberty to have them stored away in the same way as a large number of others are stored, and give up renting the room.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I think it would be a great mistake to do that. It seems to me that these models are useful, even if not required by the department. Many people examine and take specifications from them when they wish to make something of the same kind, and there ought to be some building provided where they might be properly kept. If we are paying very large rent for the building they are in, it might be possible to purchase ground and erect a building where they could be stored away at less expense, and which could be utilized for other offices as well.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: There was no intention to destroy or dispose of them. A large number, as it is, are packed away in cases and stored in the basement of the same building. If the government had an abundance of room, it might be possible to put these models on exhibition, but it would cost considerable to set them out and put them in shape for exhibition. As regards the utility of these models, the number of people who come to examine them in the course of the year for the purpose of getting ideas for similar inventions, is so very small that it is hardly worth while considering it.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: No doubt since they were removed to another building, people do not go to see them to anything like the same extent as they did when these models were in a more prominent place. The reason probably is because people do not know where to find them. But I know that when they were in the Langevin block, a great many strangers used to visit these models.


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: The hon. gentleman is quite right, so far as sightseers are concerned, but any one who wishes to examine a model for the purpose of getting information, can obtain all the information he requires from the drawings, copies of which he can get for a very small sum indeed. These drawings are so made that a mechanic can make the object in-

dicated by the drawings and specifications just as well as by seeing tbe model itself.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I know that tbe change which requires applicants for patents only to furnish drawings was made some years ago.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Twelve years ago.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: But I know that I have taken parties repeatedly to see the models, who claim that they could not intelligently make the article from the drawing as they could from seeing the model.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I have now the figures the hon. gentleman asked for. The receipts for 1900 were $113,852, and the expenditure $43,040, showing a net balance of $70,812.


James Clancy: The hon. gentleman gave as a cause of the increase of $2,000 in. this' vote, the enlargement of the monthly publication of the Patent Record. Perhaps the hon. gentleman will give some details.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I can give the hon. gentleman an indication of the increase in this way : In 1897 the number of patents reported by the examiners was 4,861, and in 1900 it was 6,161, an increase of 1,300. Up to the present date, the increase of this year is even greater ; so that, I venture to say in the current year the patents reported upon will number about 7,500.


James Clancy: Does that mean an increased number of examiners ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Yes.


James Clancy: That was not the reason given by the hon. gentleman at the outset, but the greater size of the Patent Record. Now it turns out that the hon. gentleman has additional examiners, and this money goes out in salaries.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: The Patent Record is a record of the patents issued. When there are more patents issued, the volume is larger. The Printing Bureau charges us for the printing, the cuts and so on, and consequently we have to pay a larger amount.


James Clancy: How many additional examiners does the hon. gentleman propose to employ ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: We have been adding to the staff of examiners, and consequently have been catching up with the arrears of work and issuing a larger number of patents. The size of the Patent Record depends not on the number of examiners, but on the number of patents issued.


James Clancy: Perhaps it is due to my dullness that I do not understand the hon.


Clifford Sifton: gentleman. At first, he said the increase was due to the greater size of the volume, for the reason that he has now stated that there is an increase in the number of patents issued. He stated later that, owing to the increase in the number of patents applied for and issued, additional examiners are required.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: No, I have not said anything about that yet.


James Clancy: Perhaps the hon. gentleman will tell the committee whether there is anything in that item of $2,000 for additional examiners.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: No.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: As the patents Issued are realizing a. net income of about $70,000 a year, has the hon. minister ever considered the advisability or wisdom of reducing the expense of obtaining a patent ? It seems a small sum, about $45 for an ordinary patent, but I know that many people that take out patents, think it ought to be done for a great deal less. I have long been of opinion that the charge for patents ought not to be more than enough to cover the cost. Has the hon. gentleman given the subject any consideration ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Yes, I have. And I have had under consideration somewhat radical changes in the fees and the mode of collecting them. But I have not been able to work out what I consider a satisfactory amendment on these lines. I have examined pretty carefully into the working of the patent laws in the United States and England, and have had several conferences on the subject. Had it not been for the unfortunate long-continued illness of the deputy commissioner of patents, Mr. Scarth, who has been confined to his house during the last year, I think I might have been able to come to some conclusion. But Mr. Scarth, who was helping me in the investigation in this matter, has not been able to take it up with me, and I have been waiting until such time as he could. I am not prepared to say that I can do anything in the matter this session, but I believe that before another session comes, I will be able to introduce a Bill making considerable amendments, amongst them something in the line the hon. gentleman (Mr. Sproule) has indicated.
Arts, Agriculture and Statistics-Statistical Year-Book, $3,000.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: How many of these books are issued usually ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: We expect to publish this year, 4,300 copies in English and 1,200 in French, the same number as for the past three years.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: When is this book supposed to be distributed to the public ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: This work is compiled from departmental reports, which are generally ready for the public within six months after the termination of the fiscal year. But it is only after they are all completed that the Statistical Year Book is worked out from them. The result is that practically the Statistical Year Book reaches the hands of the public from a year to fifteen months after the emd of the fiscal year with which it deals..


Frederick Debartzch Monk: In what month was the last issue published ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: It was laid on the Table of the House toward the end of last session and distributed after the session.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Has the French version been distributed ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Yes, long before this.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: There are two things to be said in this connection. In the first place there is great delay in the publication of the French version. In the next place, I do not believe there are a sufficient number of French copies printed for distribution. I have been asked time and again for the French version, and found it very difficult to obtain it ; I have been time and again told it was not ready, or that there were no more copies for distribution. I think the minister should publish a much larger number of the French version. I do not think 2,000 would be excessive.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I am surprised to hear my hon. friend's statement, because I have been told by the statistician every year that while he had a large number of French copies left on hand, the whole of the English edition was exhausted. I state positively that has been the case every year. I have been frequently advised that it was not necessary to add to the French edition. I may say that the book is compiled in English originally and is translated immediately by an officer in the department and sent to the printer. If there is any delay in the issue of the French edition, the fault does not lie with the officers of my department. It may be that the printing of the French edition does not take place rapidly, but the translation of the copy is furnished to the Printing Bureau within, at most, a few weeks of the printing of the English copy.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: There is something difficult to understand in that, and I shall certainly place in the hands of my hon. friend letters that I have received in which I was told that there were no more French copies for distribution.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Was it not that the French copies were not yet issued, or were being issued at the time ?


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Both.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I grant that the French copy is not printed as soon as it might be after the English copy is issued, but I can hardly understand why, after they are printed, there should be any shortage of the French edition, because I have been told every year that there were French copies on hand but no English ones.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I have had letters making complaints of both kinds, and I will look them up and hand them to the minister. I am surprised to hear that only two or three weeks elapsed between the English and the French publication.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I said between sending the copy to the Printing Bureau when responsibility in regard to it is removed from my department


Jabel Robinson: I have seen a copy of the Statistical Year-Book in the Library, and I think it is a very interesting work, and if possible it should be placed in the hands of all the school teachers of this Dominion. It contains knowledge that should be specially disseminated among the agricultural community. How many copies does the minister supply to each member of parliament for distribution ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: This book is not distributed as parliamentary printing ; it is not printed on the same basis or on the same principle as the departmental reports and other things which are printed by order of parliament. This book is printed by a special vote. There is in the department a list of public bodies and individuals throughout the country, largely engaged in education, to whom this book is sent as a matter of course. That list has been in existence a long time. Sometimes additions are made to it. I have never disturbed the list that I found when I came into office, except to make some few additions to it. Two years ago, and last year, a demand was made by members of parliament for a number of copies of this book for ordinary parliamentary distribution. That of course can be done if parliament so desires. But the vote that I am asking for is for the purpose of the distribution of that statistical Year-Book as a part of the work in my department. In deference to the requirements of the members of the House I agreed that a limited number of this work should be placed at the disposal of every member, and I said I would try to give about ten copies to each member. I think it is possible to continue that with the vote that I have at my disposal. If parliament wishes to have a larger number distributed to each member,

a vote will liave to be passed especially for the purpose.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: It seems to me the efficiency of the work is considerably impaired owing to the delay that takes place in its publication. I never could understand why it requires twelve, fifteen or sixteen months after the returns are made to parliament to get out this book. It is only a compilation, that a few hands ought toi be able to put together in a short time, and the printing is not a serious matter. To have it coming out fifteen months after the returns are made diminishes its value. With regard to the number that are distributed, I think it should be increased. We have applications from school teachers and people in various other lines for copies of the book, and are unable to supply more than a small fraction of the number asked for. Some vears ago I suggested that certain classes of schools be supplied with this book, and it was thought that would cost too much. But I think the money would be well spent. At any rate, members of parliament ought to have a reasonable number for distribution to those who apply.


Mr. McGOWAN.: Does the hon. gentleman send this book to the public libraries throughout the Dominion ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: It is sent to public libraries, to mechanics' institutes, to the press, and to a number of other people. To send it to ail the schools would require an edition of 40,000 or 50,000, and a ten-fold increase of this voce.


Andrew B. Ingram: Has the hon. gentleman reduced his staff in the Statistical Department ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: When I came into office in 1S90 there were a number of employees whom I dispensed with, but there has been no change within the last year or two.


Andrew B. Ingram: That accounts for the delay in getting out the book.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I have not reduced the staff for the last three years. When I came into office those I dismissed were not engaged on the Statistical Year-Book, but on the remains of the former census.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: What is the amount of the cost that would cover the cost of printing ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Practically in this item, the whole amount. The salaries of the men who do the statistical work are in another item under civil government.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I agree with the remarks made by the hon. member for East Elgin (Mr. Ingram). I think it would be desirable that we should have a larger number Mr. FISHER.
of these books. It is a well prepared book, and it would be of infinite use in our schools. I know that in Montreal, very probably, you will not find in one of the elementary schools in that city, where they have 35,000 or 36,000 children, a single copy of the book. I think a great many of the pupils would be better employed perusing that book than many other books that they have in the schools. I think that next year the minister should make note of the necessity which exists throughout the country and make a larger distribution of that valuable volume.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I would like to give some figures which will show the hon. member for East Elgin that I am correct. In 1893 there were issued 3,374 copies of this book, 2,600 in English and 774 in French, at a cost of $4,43L In 1894 there were issued 2.400 copies in English and 750 copies in French ; that is to say, 200 less in English and 24 less in French than in the previous year, at a cost of $6,000 odd.


Mr. WILSON.: The book was larger ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Yes, the book was larger. But, I may say that the book to-day contains all the information that it contained at that time in the way of statistical tables, and so on. By condensation and rearrangement the information is all there, although all the opinions that were expressed are not there. In 1895 there were issued 2,400 copies in English and 750 copies in French, at a cost of $6,000. In 1S96 3,000 copies in English and 1,000 copies in French were issued. It increased the first year that I came into office. The expense was only $2,100.


Andrew B. Ingram: How was the reduction brought about ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: By condensing the book and doing the work more cheaply. In 1897 4,300 copies were issued in English and 1,200 in French. The edition of 5,500 cost $2,544. In 1898 the same number was issued, at a cost of $3,090. That was due to the increase in the wages of the Printing Bureau. In 1899 5,500 copies were issued, 4,300 in English and 1,200 in French, at a cost of $3,161.


Uriah Wilson: Iloiy many copies does the hon. minister intend to issue this year-an increased number ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: If the cost per volume comes up to last year, I will have to continue with the same issue, because I have reached the limit of the money which I have at my disposal- $3,000.


Andrew B. Ingram: The government have established a department of labour, and the duty of those engaged in this department

is to collect labour statistics. It strikes me that instead of creating another department, *when the department of statistics has been continued for years, if the government had employed such men as Mr. King and some parties to assist him, and allowed the department of statistics, as now conducted, to collect these labour statistics as well as other statistics, they would have been adopting a wise policy. It would save expense, and if members of parliament and others desiring information in respect to agriculture, labour, or any question affecting the welfare of the people, instead of getting the Statistical Year Book on the one hand, and taking a monthly pamphlet on the other, could get all these statistics in the Statistical Year Book, it would be much handier, because we could get all the information we required on any of these subjects in one volume. It would also be much cheaper than it is under the present system of having a statistical department controlled by Mr. Johnson, and a labour department controlled by Mr. King. I think the statistics would be more accurate, and they would be in a much more convenient form. There would also be the advantage otf being able to pro-cure the Statistical Year Book much quicker than it is issued to-day. As the hon. member for East Grey (Mr. Sproule) has said, the great fault with the present Statistical Year Book is that too long a time is allowed to elapse between the end of the year with which the book treats, and the time when members of this House receive their copies. It is a great fault, because many persons, when they want to look up different questions, instead of referring to the Year Book, have to take the departmental reports to acquire the information that they desire.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I am not going into the general question of policy as to the Labour Bureau and the compilation of statistics. I do not agre'e with the hon. member for East Elgin, that, on the whole, it would be more handy for the public to have all these different kinds of statistics in the same volume. There are many people who want labour statistics, and who are not interested in the other statistics contained in this volume. There are those who are engaged in studying agricultural statistics who are not desirous of studying labour statistics.


Andrew B. Ingram: Why not ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Because they do not happen to be interested in those lines. They may not be or they may be. But they can get full information when the books containing all these particular things are issued. If you were to put all the statistics in one volume it would make a larger and bulkier volume, and those who do not wish to study one part would still have to take that part. The
hon. gentleman has to a considerable extent answered himself, when he said that the fault of the Statistical Year Book was, that the information did not come out until twelve or fifteen months from the end of the year for which it was compiled. In the Labour Gazette that information comes out month by month. The information is given promptly and accurately. The Labour Gazette is published for other purposes besides those of statistics, and it deals very largely with other things. I think it is better that all labour matters should be dealt with by men who are specially charged with that kind of work, and that statistical work of another 'character should be in the hands of others who are accustomed to deal with it. As to the general policy as to the establishment of a Labour Bureau and the publication of labour statistics, I do not know that it is necessary to go into that.


Andrew B. Ingram: Does the hon. gentleman pretend to say that because a man wishes to find statistics affecting labour he would not be interested in questions of agriculture ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: No, I do not say so.


Andrew B. Ingram: The hon. gentleman could not say so in reason, because it is a well-known fact that all those interests are so closely associated with each other that it is an important question for all persons who wish to understand public questions. I believe that by an increase in the staff of the statistical department, instead of reducing the staff, the Statistical Year Book would be published sooner, and it would be of more advantage to the public.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: It never has been.


Andrew B. Ingram: That is no reason why it should not be.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: No.


Andrew B. Ingram: Because we know perfectly well that some years ago the Statistical Year Book was a very large book, twice as large as it is to-day, and if you increase the staff, which could be done at a very small cost, it would be a great convenience to the public.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: It is not because of the lack of staff ; it is because it comes out after the other departmental reports.


James Clancy: [DOT] The minister will have to find some other explanation for the delay. Every one knows that the Year Book is a mere repetition of tables, and that for each year there has only to be another year added. The book should come out Immediately after the departmental reports, because the figures are all in shape for the statis-

tician to classify them. Surely the hon. gentleman will not plead that because the Year Booh was late in publication in the past, that he should continue what I consider the insane policy of having a Statistical Year Book a year behind the time. There is not so much work about this after all. Hon. gentlemen on the Treasury benches, when they were in opposition, were not reputed to be friendly to the Year Book. It was made the subject of annual attack, and whether the minister shared these views or not, his friends were so hostile to it that he can hardly be expected to have become friendly within a few yeai;s. This is a useful book, but it is only useful if it is properly issued and in time. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Fisher) should give some other reason for his pursuit of this snail policy in the publication of this Statistical Year Book. I think the House will justify the minister in an increased expenditure if he needs a larger staff in order that we may have this book published in proper time, when it can be of use.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: What I have stated here is the reason that has been given to me by the statistician. I confess I have left the matter very largely in the hands of Mr. Johnson, a gentleman who was the statistician when I took office, who has been carrying on the work connected with this book ever since it was inaugurated, and who, I believe, is competent to carry it on. I have not given the matter my personal supervision, but I will be glad to tell Mr. Johnson of the remarks made here, and see if he can work out a scheme which will satisfy the hon. gentleman.


James Clancy: The minister knows that he is responsible, and that Mr. Johnson is in no sense responsible.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Certainly.


James Clancy: Has the minister no suggestion of his own to make, rather than merely to tell Mr. Johnson what has been said in this House ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I will be very glad if I can hasten the publication of this book.


Mr. PUTTEE.: The hon. member for Bothwell (Mr. Clancy) is rather off the mark in charging the delay to the statistical department. It was well into the summer last session before the blue-books were laid on the Table, and I understand the Statistical Year Book is compiled from these reports. The report of the Superintendent of Printing states that the Year Book for 1899 was turned out of the Bureau before June 30, 1900, and that is within a month or two of the date that the departmental reports were brought down to this House.


James Clancy: 


James Clancy: What departmental reports does the hon. gentleman (Mr. Puttee) refer to ?


Arthur W. Puttee: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Clancy) knows that some of the blue-books were not put on the Table until May of last year, and the Statistical Year Book, which is made up from them, was out of the Printing Bureau before June 30 last year.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Puttee) is not well informed or he would know that this book is always a year after the departmental reports are made.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: And the minister admits it.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: What I said was : that the statistics of the year ending June 30, 1899, are made up in the Year Book which is issued in 1900. about twelve months after, and that is what the hon. member for Winnipeg (Mr. Puttee) has stated.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: That is not what the hon. gentleman (Mr. Puttee) stated, but that is exactly what we are all saying here.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: The hon. member for Winnipeg (Mr. Puttee) is correct in stating that the departmental blue-books were laid upon the Table of the House in the month of May last year, and the Statistical Y'ear Book was issued in June.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Not for the same year.


James Clancy: Whose fault was it that the departmental reports were not down before ?
Hon. Mr. ROSS (Victoria, N.S.) Our Year Book is like the Newcastle horse, very hard to catch and very little worth when you do catch him. I do not care so much for the delay, but I do say that the make-up of the book and the information it contains is not what should be expected from the Year Book for the Dominion of Canada. I have been in the habit for a long number of years of getting the Year Book of New Zealand, which I will place on the Table for hon. gentlemen to examine, and they will see a Year Book that is worth looking at. Both in the printing and in the information it contains the Canadian Year Book, when we do get it, does not do justice to this great Dominion of Canada.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: If the Minister of Agriculture will take the trouble to look at the New Zealand Year Book he will feel considerable humiliation at the Year Book published by his department. The preface for the New Zealand Year Book of 1900 is dated August. 1900. and it states that parts of the book have been issued already and circulated in England, as the statistics were being prepared. It is only sufficient to look at the New Zealand Year Book to see how far we are behind. I can readily understand

from the remarks of gentlemen who were in the House before the present government came into power, why the Canadian Year Book is thought so little of by the government. I appeal to the minister to get out his Year Book as quickly as possible, and if he wants the necessary money for that purpose, we will not refuse it.
Aid to agricultural societies, $7,000.


David Henderson: The minister might tell us how this money is expended.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: It is expended in the North-west Territories entirely. The local territorial government are not able to encourage agriculture in those territories in the same way that the local governments do in the different provinces, and for many years the parliament of Canada has voted this sum, which is distributed among the agricultural societies of the North-west Territories in proportion to their membership. A return is made every year to the department of the number of members of the different societies.


David Henderson: I do not object at all to the item, but I think it would be just as well if the whole truth were told in the estimates. Then this item would read: Aid to agricultural societies in the North-west Territories. We have a great deal of complaint from that section of the country that the people there are getting nothing at all. and when we are giving them $7,000, and giving nothing to the other parts of the country, I think we should state the fact.


Edward Gawler Prior: Might I ask the bon. gentleman why it is given to the Northwest Territories and to no other portion of the Dominion ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Each province has the power of taxation and can do this work for itself; but the North-west Territories are not organized, and the Dominion government, which has to act for the Territories, does the work there.


Uriah Wilson: Will the minister explain the difference between the item Statistical Year Book and the item General Statistics, or are they the same ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: The item Statistical Year Book is for the printing of the book, while the item General Statistics is for certain temporary clerks who are employed in the department, in collecting statistics and doing work almost entirely for the book ?


James Clancy: Will the hon. gentleman tell the committee who furnishes the information upon which this grant is made, that is, with regard to the number of members of each society, and so on ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: It is furnished through the Department of Agriculture of the Territories.


Andrew B. Ingram: The hon. gentleman said that the cost of the Statistical Year Book in 1893 was $4,000, in 1894 $0,000, in 1895 $0,000, in 1890 $2,100, in 1897 $2,500, iu 1898 $3,000, and in 1899 $3,100; but when we take these two items together we find that this year it will cost $0,200.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: The figures I gave the hon. gentleman were for the printing alone, and did not include this item of general statistics.


Andrew B. Ingram: It is not fair to the committee to say that is what the book cost.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: The hon. gentleman does not mean to misrepresent me. The item before me was for the printing of the book, not for the compilation, which is done by the clerks in the department.


Andrew B. Ingram: We did not understand that.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I cannot help that.


Andrew B. Ingram: The hon. gentleman was claiming credit for the reduction of the cost of the book. Why did he not say that that was for the printing of the book alone ? Were these items always separate before?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Yes, always. The figures I read were a fair comparison with the cost in previous years.


Andrew B. Ingram: Would the hon. gentleman say what both items amount to from 1893 to 1899 ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I would have to look back at the estimates of previous years. The item of $3,200 has 1 believe been the same ever since I have been in office.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: How many clerks are employed in this compilation, which costs $3,200 ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: They are as follows : Mr. Watts, $730; Mr. Munro, $725; Miss Ross, $672; Mr. Lepage, $050; sundry accounts, $423; making up the $3,200. But this does not include Mr. George Johnson's salary, nor the salaries of a couple of other clerks in the office.


James Clancy: The hon. gentleman unwittingly, I think, did mislead the committee. I was impressed with the remarks the hon. gentleman made. He was discussing the compilation as well as the printing.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: No.


James Clancy: My hon. friend from East Elgin (Mr. Ingram) asked how the cost came to be reduced. The hon. gentleman's answer was that he had dismissed a staff,



[Stage Direction]
wlio were at work on the census instead of [DOT]compiling this book, and there was a reduction in consequence.
The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: No. no.


James Clancy: Is that money for agricultural societies paid to the North-west council, or to the individual societies ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: To the societies directly.


James Clancy: Upon a statement made by the North-west council ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: The statement comes through the Northwest council from the secretaries of the different societies, and is certified to as correct by the secretary of the Department of Agriculture of the North-west Territorial government, he getting the returns from the societies.


James Clancy: I am not going to quarrel with the grant, but I can say to the hon. gentleman that there is a great deal of slipshod business about it. There is a great deal of padding as to the number of members, which is without foundation, and I think it will be worth while for the hon. gentleman to make inquiry into the matter. He can see at a glance the opportunities there are, in the channels through which the information comes, without attempting to cast discredit on any one.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I may say that when I first came into office this grant was distributed without reference to the territorial government; and to avoid just what the gentleman suggests, and believing that the territorial government had more intimate relations with the people there, I required that the list of members should pass through their hands, thinking they could check it better than I could at this distance.
Experimental'farms, $80,000,


James Clancy: In view of the course taken by the Minister of the Interior with regard to the growth and planting of trees, and in view of what is being done in the experimental farms, the work of one department would seem to have run somewhat into the other. I think the hon. gentleman ought to state to the committee what is being done in that respect at the agricultural farm in Manitoba and the North-west Territories.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Ever since the establishment of the experimental farm, the attention of the staff has been turned to the cultivation of trees in order to find out what trees were most suitable for plantation in our territorial plains and then producing and distributing such trees as largely as possible to individual farmers. Mr. Mackay, the manager of the >t. CLANCY.
farm at Indian Head, started with sowing-seeds of certain kinds of trees, which Professor Saunders thought were likely to succeed. He also planted certain seedlings, some of which were procured from the adjoining northern states of the American union, some from Europe, and some from different parts of the Territories where tree seeds could be conveniently collected. This experimental work has been eminently successful. We have at Indian Head rows of trees which, I think, will average from 24 to 80 feet in height and which have beeu grown during the last twelve years, and today form most splendid wind-breaks. After careful investigation, we have found that for every foot added to the height of those wind-breaks, the effect upon the fields to the leeward has been extended forty to fifty feet. When a wind-break is ten feet high, it will help the culture of crops on a stretch of land about 500 feet out from the wind-break. When the tree is twenty feet high, it will affect an extent of 1,000 feet in width, and about forty or fifty feet more in width to every foot added to the height. This is of the utmost importance in those plains in which there has been found difficulty in raising successful crops in all seasons owing to the wind sweep. This work has been going on ever since the farm was started, and we have been able, by the distribution of small bundles of these young trees, to encourage the growing of trees in homesteads all over the North-west Territories. To-day there are many homesteads surrounded by little groves of trees, the first seedlings of which were sent out from the Brandon farm, which furnish striding object lessons to the people of the plains, and the result has been a constant stream of requests for these bundles of trees. But we could not possibly send out a very great number, and those we did send out were only sufficient to form object lessons, and not really form great stretches of wind-breaks for the practical working out of the problem of protecting our wind-swept plains. The Minister of the Interior appointed a gentleman some two years ago, Mr. See wart, to study this question of forestry, especially in the Territories, and Mr. Stewart came to the conclusion that it would be well for the Department of the Interior, which has ' charge especially of those lands, to largely increase the supply of such trees to the settlers. The officers of the experimental farm are entrusted with the duty of finding out wliat can be done, but it is not their duty to supply trees on a commercial scale or iu such numbers that the farmers can supply themselves with wind-breaks. That is a work which falls naturally on the Department of the Interior, in whose charge is the improvement and settlement of the public lands of the Dominion, and the officer in charge specially of this work has applied to me to allow the experimental farms to help him in producing large quantities of these

trees for general distribution. We have agreed to do this and have devoted a small portion of each of the farms at Brandon and Indian Head to the production of these trees. But as the experimental farms are intended for experimental work and not for commercial production of trees for the settlers, we have required that the Department of the Interior should pay to the Department of Agriculture the expenditure caused by this work, just as my department pays the Printing Bureau for the printing of the Statistical Year-Book, and the details are now being arranged between Professor Saunders and Mr. Stewart.


James Clancy: I understand from the hon. minister that the work carried on by the experimental farms is of an educational character, in order to ascertain the kinds of trees that will be suited to the country generally and to particular localities as well. That educational work must be to a very large extent already accomplished, and the remaining question is, how that western country can be supplied with proper wind breaks. Then it appears that Mr. Stewart was also called in by the Minister of the Interior to study the kind of trees best suited to that country.
I was impressed with what the hon. gentleman said had already been accomplished by the experimental farms. If the experimental farms have been engaged in carrying out this work, a useful work, I admit, to that country, there was no duty for Mr. Stewart to perform but to draw his salary-and that is what has been suspected from the first. I am afraid the hon. gentleman has given away the case of the Minister of the Interior. What the Minister of the Interior stated, and what Mr. Stewart stated, was, that the latter's efforts were directed toward finding what trees could be grown in that country. That work seems to have been performed by the experimental farm. If that is so, we had better do without Mr. Stewart ; or. if the experimental farms have been idle all this time in relation to work, we ought to know it. This matter was under the management of the former government. I am not going to say whether it was well or ill-conducted, but if it was not well carried out in the direction indicated by the hon. gentleman, it was useless then, and it is useless now. The hon. gentleman has said, as I understand, that the experimental farm expects to furnish tree plants for that whole country. But, the people of Canada hold that the government is not called upon to do more than carry on the educational work. There is no more reason why the government of Canada should furnish windbreaks at the public expense than there is why it should build barns for the farmers of that country. I am glad to hear the minister say that the educational work has been fairly well done in that country. And in the face of that statement the Minister
of the Interior should withdra w_ the grant that he has asked this House to give him for that purpose ; from the statement made by the Minister of Agriculture, it would seem that the department was teaching Mr. Stewart. I rather think the hon. gentleman is right in that. Because, as everybody knows, Mr. Stewart had not given this subject special study and was not specially informed upon it. He was respectably, and, I hope, profitably, employed for many years -all his life in fact-as a provincial land surveyor. He had nothing to do with matters of this kind, nor was he called upon to fit himself for a position of that kind. I am glad to have the hon. gentleman make the statement that the work is being well done by the experimental farms there, and after that statement, which I regard as very important, I think the House will hesitate to pay for the carrying out what I think I may characterize as the pretended work of Mr. Stewart.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: It is not my duty, nor is it my purpose, to discuss the grant which has been made by this House, I believe, to my hon. friend, the Minister of the Interior, to carry out this work. But, I wish to say a word or two with regard to the sense in which the hon. gentleman has taken the question up. I am sure he does not wish in any way to misrepresent me. but he has tried to give a [DOT]complexion to what I said that is entirely different to what I intended. Mr. Stewart has not called in the officers of the experimental farm to teach him anything, but he is simply asking us to produce the plants which, according to his opinion from observation of the work on the plains will be useful for wind-breaks. Mr. Stewart's intention, as I understand from him-I was not present to hear the explanation that my hon. friend and colleague (Mr. Sifton) gave here the other night-is to give object lessons on a large scale to the people in the different parts of the plains, by planting wind-breaks on a considerable scale, perhaps half a mile or a mile long, for the purpose of showing the different kinds of trees that can be used-to carry on on a large scale the work that the experimental farm has been carrying on on an experimental scale.


James Clancy: The hon. gentleman will pardon me, but he was not present when the Minister of the Interior explained the matter. If he will consult ' Hansard ' he will see that on the application of any person the Department of the Interior would take the work in hand for that person.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: And they will show how this work ought to be done to be successful, having studied the conditions, the methods and the requirements. It is to help the settlers to accomplish work which is so much in the interest
:2843*

of the country there. This work the experimental farm has not undertaken to do, because it was out of the line carried on at-the farm and by the officers of the farm. I have explained wliat the farms are doing, and I will leave the explanation of the other work to my hon. friend (Mr. Sifton), who is in charge of it.


Uriah Wilson: I think the hon. minister stated that the work done by Mr. Stewart and the officers there is merely experimental.
The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE, I did not intend to say that. But, what I intended to say, and what I think I said, was that that was the work that the farm was doing.


Uriah Wilson: Mr. Stewart stated that on the application of anybody, a man was sent out to give instructions as to tree planting. He views the land and makes a rough sketch, which is sent to the head office, where a plan Is drawn to a scale, and this officer will go back and see to the -planting of the wind-breaks. If that is to be done throughout Manitoba and the North-west Territories, the government will have a whole army of officers. I do not think that that should be done, nor do the members of this House, I believe. I should like to have an explanation as to the proportion of this $80,000 that is to go to each of the farms. Then, as to the course in giving out trees, have they given out small trees, or have they furnished the farmer with seeds ? I understand Mr. Stewart to say that where seeds could be given, it was better than to have the small trees planted.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: The only place to which the Experimental Farm sent out trees to any extent is in the North-west Territories. Occasionally a few ornamental shrubs which we want to test are sent into eastern parts of the country, but that is not the regular work of the farm. In the North-west Territories, however, small bundles of perhaps a. dozen trees, or twenty or twenty-five in some dn-stances, have been sent up, young trees. In other cases small bags of tree seed have been sent out. The farm at Indian Head and at Brandon collect seeds from all the trees growing there every season, and these seeds are distributed when asked for, much in the same way that grain and potato seed are distributed from the other farms to the farmers for trial. The hon. gentleman asked what proportion of this amount was spent on the various farms. The Central Farm at Ottawa takes $42,000; that includes the salaries of the officers at the Central Farm, and I may say it also includes practically the whole of the seed distribution which goes on from the Experimental Farm.


Mr. FISHER.: 


Uriah Wilson: Is the seed gathered on the farms in the North-west and British Columbia, distributed to the farmers there?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: A part of it is, and a part of it is sent down here to be used in the eastern part of the Dominion. There is much more seed distribution proportionately from the Central Farm than from any branch farm. The maritime province farm takes about $9,000; the Manitoba farm takes about $10,000 ; the Indian Head farm about $10,000, and the British Columbia farm about $9,000.


James Clancy: Perhaps the Minister of Agriculture could tell what kind of trees have been found to be successful.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I could not say definitely without looking at the report, but I may say in a general way that the Manitoba maple has been found most successful, and is most generally used. There is also a tree called, I think, the Russian poplar that has been successfully used, but it breaks more easily than the Manitoba maple.


James Clancy: Has that been found successful all over the Territories ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I could not say as to that. There are some parts in which it has been difficult to get any trees to grow successfully, but I think those parts are narrowing down. I think that in those sections where trees have not been grown successfully it has been owing to want of careful cultivation. I do not think the experiments of the Central Farm have yet shown a state of affairs about which we could dogmatize. It is possible that in certain sections other trees might be found more successful, because, although we have sent small packages of trees to the farmers in many parts of the Territories, I am sorry to say that in many cases the trees when planted have not been properly taken care of and treated as the directions called for. But we are not prepared to say that, because a package of trees sent to a particular farmer in a particular locality has not been successful in his hands, that therefore, they could not be successful elsewhere. But we take the reports as we get them and tabulate them as well as we can, and draw from them such conclusions as we feel justified in doing.


James Clancy: I can understand that there may be cases where the trees have not been given a fair chance ; but this work has been going on for many years, and surely the hon. gentleman will not now confess that he is unable to present any definite information as to the result of the experiments. I want to call his attention to a statement that was made in this House by a gentleman from the North-west to the effect that this Manitoba maple is the victim

of an insect, anil Inis been found a failure. That statement has been made in the House, I do not know whether the minister heard it; but the bon. gentleman who made that statement is sitting' in his place to-night. And he has stated that this tree of which the minister speaks has been planted In the vicinity of Winnipeg as well as in the Territories, and has been found to be a failure.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I would not undertake to give information on that point without looking into the matter more carefully.	_


James Clancy: Surely after the hon. gentleman painted in the most roseate hues the success of the Experimental Farm in tree planting, he is not now going to collapse and to say that he does not know anything about it.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: This brings into question the position of Mr. Stewart. When I heard the description given by the Minister of Agriculture of the success of the experiments made in the North-west in regard to trees, and particularly trees planted as wind-breaks, it seemed to me, in the first place, that we must be ready to vote any amount of money to the experimental farms, and in the next place, I asked myself what the position of Mr. Stewart really was. Would the minister tell us what is the function of Mr. Stewart ? At one moment lie says that Mr. Stewart is working in conjunction with the employees of the farm in the North-west on extensive trials of tree planting for wind-breaks ; at another moment the minister disclaims any knowledge of Mr. Stewart, and the amount which we voted the other night he says he is not called upon to defend. Now, I would like to know what Mr. Stewart's position is there. Has he really under his direction a certain number of farm hands engaged in new experiments, experiments on a grand scale of planting wind-breaks half a mile long ? They say that he is not in the department of the minister. But, I find an immense variance between what the lion. Minister of the Interior told us as to the mission of Mr. Stewart in the North-west Territories, and that mission as explained to us by the lion. Minister of Agriculture. 1 would like to find some way of conciliating these two gentlemen before we proceed to adopt this resolution.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: My hon. friend need not find any trouble. There is no difficulty in conciliating us. Mr. Stewart is an officer of the hon. Minister of [DOT] the Interior, and I have no details as to his work. Mr. Stewart does not report to me, and although I have talked with Mr. Stewart frequently, I have no information under my hand to give to fhe committee in regard to Mr. Stewart-
All I said about Mr. Stewart in connection with the experimental farms was, that by an arrangement between myself and imy colleague, the hon. Minister of the Interior, the director of the experimental farms is going to raise trees on the experimental farms for Mr. Stewart's work. I did not inquire particularly what Mr. Stewart is going to do with them. I have no control over Mr. Stewart's operations after he gets these trees, but that work is going to be carried out on the experimental farms at the expense of the Department of the Interior. I nave no further information in regard to Mr. Stewart's work to give to the committee on this occasion, and the vote which we are now discussing is not a vote for Mr. Stewart or a vote under the control of the department for which Mr. Stewart works.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: That is about as clear as mud to me, because the hon. gentleman told us a moment ago that the work of his-departmeut in the North-west Territories was purely experimental. I understood him to say distinctly that the experiment in regard to raising trees had extended over several years and that the conclusion was arrived at that it was perfectly successful. Now, he tells us that the experimental farm is, under the direction of this officer, Mr. Stewart, to raise trees for experimental purposes.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: The work is not going to be done under the direction of Mr. Stewart, but und^r the direction of the director of the experimental farms.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: For Mr. Stewart.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: All the trees that are produced are to be handed over to Mr. Stewart for his work.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: For distribution.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: For his work, whatever it may be.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Well, I give it up.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Hear, hear.


Uriah Wilson: Perhaps the hon. minister could tell us the number of farmers to whom trees or tree seeds have been distributed from the different experimental farms. I presume he keeps a record of that.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Yes, there is a record, but I have not it under my hand. I could not give the hon. gentleman the number of farmers to whom tree seeds have been distributed.


Uriah Wilson: For the past year ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I do not see any record of it in the report of the Brandon farm.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I would like to ask the hon. minister if there is any truth in the alleged

statement of Mr. Stewart which was repeated here the other night that all experiments in tree planting in the North-west Territories had utterly failed and that Mr. Stewart's mission was to go around preaching the proper doctrine of tree planting, and to give the people instruction as to how trees could he raised and proper experiments could be made. That statement was made here, and I would ask the hon. minister how he reconciles it with his own splendid experiments in the North-west ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I do not attempt to reconcile it. I do not know whether it was made or not.


James Clancy: The hon. gentleman stated in the early part of the evening that it was found to be difficult for the agricultural farms to produce trees to any considerable extent for planting in the country more than merely for experimental purposes. I understood the hon. gentleman to make that statement.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I said we had not done so before.


James Clancy: Am I to understand that the hon. gentleman intends to enlarge the building of tree planting now ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Yes, at these farms for this purpose.
_ Mr. CLANCY. Does the hon. gentleman intend to grow trees at the experimental farms*to provide wind-breaks in the country ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I propose to raise trees and to hand them over to Mr. Stewart for whatever uses his department requires them and Mr. Stewart's department, the Department of the Interior, has to pay for that work.


James Clancy: But, it is paid out of the public purse.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Yes.


James Clancy: What I ask the hon. gentleman is if he is going to devote, to" a larger extent than in the past, tile efforts of the farms to the growth of trees for the purpose of making wind-breaks upon the application of such parties as may apply to the Department of the Interior, 'is his department to be a pack horse for the Department of the Interior ? The hon. gentleman stated in most explicit terms, that, while in the past, only a comparatively few trees were grown for educational purposes, now he intends to enlarge the service and hand the trees over to Mr. Stewart to make windbreaks in the country. I do not think I am misstating the hon. gentleman in the statement that I make. If It is the intention for the Agriculture Department to furnish trees to the Department of the Interior because the Department of the In-1 Mr. MONK.
terior pays for them it is a mere change of tyrants. It does not make any difference which pays for them; it all comes out of the public purse. The question is : Should it be paid for at all in the sense of work that is to be carried out by Mr. Stewart ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: That is another matter.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: In the distribution of these trees to the farmers, are they to be charged for, or are the farmers to pay anything for them ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: My department has nothing to do with the distribution of them. We hand them over to Mr. Stewart's branch and he deals with them entirely.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: In connection with that, we would require more information because you are establishing a new line. It is practically the establishment of nurseries for the benefit of Manitoba and the Northwest Territories. If you are going to supply the demand for trees which will be enormous in the future it would be well for us to know whether they are to be supplied free or to be charged for. If you are to become the patrons of the farmers in the whole country it would be a very expensive business.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I am not going to give them to the farmers. I am going to give them to the Department of the Interior and I am not able to give the hon. gentleman any information. The information does not really affect this vote because the money asked for here is not going to be used for that purpose in any way whatever. I do not raise any technical objection to the hon. gentleman's questions; I would be glad to give him the information if I could. But, the work, being paid for by the Department of the Interior, I am not in a position to give him any information in respect to it. This work is not being done by my officer, but by an officer responsible to and paid by that department. The products will be handed over to them to do with them as they see fit according to the needs of their work. I am not responsible for that part of it.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: This vote in the first instance applies directly to the experimental farms. They are undertaking a new line of work for which the hon. Minister of Agriculture asks an amount to be voted in the estimates.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: No, Sir.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Well now, will the hon. minister wait till he hears the statement I am about to make before he so emphatically contradicts it ? I say that he asks for that item in the estimates for these experimental farms while at the same time he tells us

that they are undertaking this work. It is for us to say whether it is the part of wisdom to commence this divergence or not. Therefore, it is necessary to get this information to enable us to judge whether it is wise to keep up the farms for that purpose. I think the hon. minister ought to be in a position to give that information to the committee.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: No increased expenditure which is required for this work is to be taken out of the vote under consideration. The land of the farm is to be used, it is true, but any other work in connection with the raising of these trees for this purpose is to be paid for by the Interior Department.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Perhaps only a dozen farmers may apply this year, but if the experiment is a great success there may be a thousand applications next year. This will, of course, entail increased work on the farms, and before we determine whether it is wise to maintain these experimental farms for that purpose, we should have the information I have asked for.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I cannot give any more information.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I do not think that is at all fair. As the hon. member (Mr. Sproule) has pointed out, we are embarking upon a new policy. I am far from saying that it is not a proper thing to maintain these tree nurseries for the farmers of the North-west, but surely we are entitled to know what amount out of this vote is to be expended for the cultivation of these trees.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: No portion of this vote will be so expended.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Who will pay the expense then ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: The Minister of the Interior will pay the expense in that connection. I have already explained that no part of this $80,000 will be devoted to that work. The farm work will be carried on as it has been in the past, and every bit of work connected with the raising of these trees will be paid for out of the Interior vote.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Then, we are commencing to divide the farm work between two departments of the government, and that is a bad system. In the past we thought it wise to keep all this work under the Department of Agriculture, so that we might see at a glance what is the expenditure and what is the progress made. If the Department of the Interior becomes a co-partner with that of Agriculture, it will be more complex and more difficult to get at the value of the work done.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Although the work is going to be paid for by the Department of the Interior, that 90
department will not have anything to do with the actual management of the work. The work will be done by the farm at the expense of the Interior Department, but it will be done by my officers and by the hands employed on the farm, and if more hands are needed, as they will be for this work, the time and the work of those hands will be charged to the Minister of the Interior, just the same as the Printing Bureau charges my department with printing other work.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Suppose that on one of these farms a dozen men are employed and three are engaged in the arboretum, and the demand will so increase in the future that it will require a couple of hundred hands to supply it, that extra demand would not be in connection with the farm work, and yet we will be called upon to vote larger sums year after year, to meet this increased employment of labour.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Through the Department of the Interior.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Will not the Department of Agriculture pay for the farm hands ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: It is impossible for me to explain any further than I have.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The minister told us a few minutes ago that this vote covered the salaries of the farm hands. But suppose this work requires a far greater number of hands, will we not be obliged to vote a larger sum year after year to pay them ? In order to enable us to determine if it is wise to enter into this business, it is essential that we should have the information that we ask. As soon as the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Agriculture get through their consultation, I will resume. I am not talking for the mere amusement of it, nor for the purpose of killing time, but with the endeavour-somewhat ineffectual, I admit- to get information which we ought to know before we can intelligently vote this money. We ought to know upon what line it is proposed to distribute these trees to the farmers, and whether or not, an unlimited number will be supplied in the future, as the demands may increase.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I must tell the hon. gentleman frankly that that is information which I cannot give. My hon. colleague (Hon. Mr. Sifton) has that information, and I believe gave it to the House when) he got the vote out of which this expenditure is paid. I have explained that the money which I am asking now will not go for that purpose, and therefore I do not chink I can fairly be called upon to give that information.


Andrew B. Ingram: Do I understand that no portion of this $80,000 will be applied to the distribution of the trees ?

[DOT]2851


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: None of it will go for paying the expense of supplying these trees to the Interior Department. Some of it now does go for the distribution of trees, as has been the case for years, and that same kind of distribution will be continued, but that is different from the distribution carried on by Mr. Stewart for the Interior Department. In answer to my hon. friend from Lennox (Mr. Wilson), I wish to say that I have found a statement of the amount of tree seed, and trees distributed from the Brandon farm last year. The following is the distribution : Six hundred bags of maple seed, of one pound each ; three hundred and sixty-one packages of seedling trees containing various numbers of box elders, cottonwood, caragana arborescens, plum seedlings and artemisea cuttings.


Uriah Wilson: These were distributed in the North-west ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Yes.


Andrew B. Ingram: In the Auditor General's Report (D-31) there is an amount of $395.46 for distribution of trees from the Brandon Experimental Farm. Do these trees go to farmers in that neighbourhood ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: That was the cost of the distribution which was carried on at Brandon. These tree seeds and seedling trees are sent out through the province of Manitoba in the same way as seed grain is sent out all over the country from the experimental farm here.


Andrew B. Ingram: Then I understand that the Department of Agriculture does not intend to go any further than it is doing now ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: No, the same kind of work.


Andrew B. Ingram: But the Department of the Interior intends to inaugurate a system of planting wind-breaks for the farmers of the North-west, and the government is to pay for the trees for that purpose ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: That is a detail of the work as to which I am not in a position to give information to the committee, because it belongs to my colleague's department. While I have talked the matter over with him, I have not under my hand the details as to how the work is to be done.


Mr.   MONIC@: When we come to Mr. Stewart's mission in the North-west, the Minister of Agriculture reminds me of a character in one of Dicken's novels, who, whenever asked a question, replied : * You must really know what you want to know.' I suppose this new line which is to be taken up on the experimental farms of the North-west has not been taken up without a previous under-Mr. INGRAM.
standing with the Department of the Interior as to the extent to which this treeplanting would be carried as an experiment in favour of the farmers of the North-west. What is the agreement arrived at as to that, and what are the trees which at the present moment are being nursed on the farms to serve as wind-breaks.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: As to the exact extent of this work, I would have to inquire of Professor Saunders. I left the matter in his and Mr. Stewart's hands for mutual arrangement. In the conversation I had with him, it was considered that four or five acres of tree seed would be planted at each of these farms this spring. The hon. gentleman asks what trees are at present on the farms for this purpose. There are none. That work is just beginning. We have been doing this work for years, and a list of the trees that are planted appears in the reports of the farm from year to year.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: What is the tree air. Stewart has recommended ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I cannot tell exactly. We are going to plant two or three different kinds, we think. The Manitoba maple and the cottonwood have been mentioned ; but I would not undertake from casual conversation to give the committee a list of the trees that are to be started. That is under discussion between Professor Saunders and Mr. Stewart.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Then it amounts to this, that we are entering into this work without knowing the extent to which it is to be carried or what trees are to be planted. I do not think it is fair for the minister to ask us for this vote without giving that information.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: It looks like a vote of want of confidence in the Minister of Agriculture by the Minister of the Interior. The hon. gentleman tells us that his department have carried on that work for some years, but I understood that it was comparatively a failure-why ? Because it was not done on intelligent lines. Now the work is to be taken out of his hands by the Minister of the Interior. The hon. gentleman's department will do the menial work of planting seeds, but as soon as the trees are above the ground the Minister of the Interior will take charge of them and will become the medium between the farm and the farmers. That is the sum and substance of the information we have had up to the present. Would the minister tell us about the number of stock on these farms, and what experiments are being carried on generally ?
The MINISTER OF AGRICULi l. RE. The annual report of the farms gives full details of the number of head of animals of all kinds on each farm. I could look up the report, and give it to the committee if

the hon. gentleman insists upon it; but I do not think that is what .he means. We hare on these farms cattle, sheep, swine anil poultry as well as horses for the carrying-on of the work. In round figures we have at. the present time on the experimental farm at Ottawa 125 or 130 head of cattle, 35 or 40 sheep, 40 or 50 pigs, and between 100 and 200 head of poultry. I would not like to give a more exact statement without referring to the actual figures. At the farm of the maritime provinces at Nappan we have probably 75 head of cattle, including the young calves, 40 or 50 pigs, 30 or 40 sheep, 40 or 50 head of poultry, and the horses necessary for carrying on the work. We have at Brandon about the same number as at Nappan, and at Indian Head, about the same-perhaps not as many cattle. I do not think we have any sheep at either Brandon or Indian Head. At Agassiz, B.C., we have a smaller stock-20 or 25 head of cattle, 12 or 15 sheep, 20 or 30 pigs, some poultry and a few horses. The hon. gentleman has asked me about the lines of stock breeding and general work. I must be pretty general. The details of all this are given before the Committee on Agriculture every year by the officers of the farm, and it would be tedious and, I think, unimportant for me to go into the details. But generally I may say that at the farm here and at the Nappan, farm we carry on considerable dairy work, besides feeding cattle for beef every winter. I have a number of steers fattened every spring, most of which were bought in the fall and sold in the spring. They are fed on experimental lines, and the results are published in the report for the information of all those interested in feeding stock. The feeding of swine and sheep and poultry is also carried on for the same purpose. The farms in the west are less devoted to dairying, although at each some cows are kept all the year round.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: A few years ago there was considerable tuberculosis among the stock, and while a number were slaughtered, I understood that some were kept in quarantine under treatment. What has been the result of that treatment ?


The MINISTER OP AGRICULTURE.: There was none of that stock kept at the farm. The animals that were found to be tuberculous were slaughtered, with the exception of ten head, which were sent to Montreal, and put into a small quarantine station to be treated by Dr. McEachran. They were kept about ten months and then slaughtered. Since that other animals have been quarantined in the same way. and subjected to various experiments, but there have been no tuberculous animals on the farm since the spring or winter of 1897. Since then we have carefully tested every animal purchased with the tuberculin#, and when, as has occurred in very few instances, 904
reaction took place, the animal was>
slaughtered immediately.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Has the hon. gentleman made up his mind as to the value of the tuberculine test ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: That subject will be more properly treated under the heading of the tuberculosis vote.


James Clancy: The hon. minister has stated that the cost of growing trees for distribution in the Territories was to be paid by the Interior Department. Has the hon. gentleman made any calculation to show what that additional cost will be ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: No, because that matter is now being ar- ' ranged between Prof. iSaundei-s and Mr. Stewart, and the details are not yet settled.


James Clancy: I see that out of an expenditure of $15,000 voted last night to the Interior Department, only $1,500 is for treeplanting. Evidently the Interior Department has made no provision for what the hon. gentleman says that department will have to pay with regard to those trees.


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: $1,500 will cover the expense.


James Clancy: Then, it is evident not much will be done.


Mr. TAYLOR.: What is the plan adopted with regard to the distribution of these trees ? Have the farmers to apply to the Agriculture Department for the trees they require, or will so many trees toe distributed to each municipality ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: That is a matter with which the Department of the Interior has to deal and not my department.


George Taylor: Then, the Minister of the Interior should be here to give the explanation.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: He explained it when his items were before the House.


George Taylor: Certainly $1,500 is not going to meet the expense of raising and distributing these trees and supplying all the tools necessary to cultivate them. If the Department of the Interior is to run the business, why not give the land to that department, and not make a joint account ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Because it is considered that the work will be done more cheaply and better by the experimental farms.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Have any representations been made to the hon. minister for the establishment of a farm-I do not say an experimental farm-but a farm under government control in the province of Quebec ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Requests have come from various parts to increase the number of experimental farms. The Experimental Farm Act specifies the number and where they shall be. The farm at Ottawa is on the boundary between Quebec and Ontario, so that it serves these two great provinces. That was the decision arrived at by our predecessors, whom the hon. gentleman and his friends have supported.
I confess that I consider that the number of experimental farms at present is sufficient for the needs of the experimental work of the country, so far as great experimental farms can carry on that work. I have always believed as I stated when the establishment of the experimental farms was originally proposed, that it would have been better if, instead of the great farms, farms smaller in extent and less expensive in their management-small illustration or experimental stations-had been established all over the country. That view was not accepted at the time. Great establishments were made at the various points, and a large amount of money was spent on them, and a large amount of annual expenditure entailed. We would not be able to change that whole policy without making a radical change in the Act, and involving the country in large additional expenditure. The work has been done on the lines laid down, it has been carried out by the officers in an excellent manner. I am glad to say that this work inaugurated by my predecessors in office and my political opponents has been well carried out, and has resulted in great advantage to the farming industry and population of the country. I am not prepared, in view of the large expenditure of the farms to-day, to propose a radical change in the farm policy. I have had it in view, as is well known to hon. members who were in the last parliament to extend the work with establishments on a smaller scale. But that was met with such opposition by hon. gentlemen opposite, and by other gentlemen in this House, that it was dropped. I still believe that it would be in the interest of agriculture and of the community at large, if such a change could be brought about. But I have not seen my way to repeat the proposal this session. It would not have involved any change in the management or equipment of the present experimental farms.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: The hon. gentleman has gone far beyond the question I asked him. What I wished to elicit a reply to is this-as he says there is no desire in the province of Quebec to have a complete experimental farm ; but representations have been made, I believe, and figures laid before him to show that the Experimental Farm at Ottawa is not easily accessible, and therefore it is desired that a station upon a modest scale, a sort of model farm, should be


Frederick Debartzch Monk: .
established near Montreal. I wished to know if the minister had arrived at a decision on these representations. I know that such representations have been made from my own county.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Similar representations have been made from various sections all over the country.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: But I would like the hon. minister to answer with regard to the province of Quebec.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I am going to answer the hon. gentleman's question, but in the way I think right to answer it. Similar representations and requests have been made from various parts of the country, from Vancouver on the west to Prince Edward Island on the east. I have never seen my way to acceed to one of these requests, or to deal witli them ns I thought it would be well to do, if I dealt with one.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What has been the hon. gentleman's success or otherwise in dealing with the San Josd scale last year and the year before ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Here again I would point out that I am taking a vote to deal with that, and I shall be prepared to discuss the subject when the question comes up.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Then, there is an item?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Yes- not in the main estimates, but in the supplementary estimates for this year or next year.


Mr. McCREARY.: Ill view of the fact that the hon. gentleman has stated, that these farms have become unwieldy


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: They are the same as they were.


William Forsythe McCreary: 
The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I would point out, in the first place, that what we may call agricultural education, like every other kind of education, is purely within the sphere of the provincial government, and the provincial law. Several of the provinces of the Dominion have provided out of their own resources for the agricultural education within their boundaries, which I think is the proper method of providing for education, agricultural or otherwise.


William Forsythe McCreary: There they are trying to settle them on lands owned by themselves, but the Dominion own the lands in Manitoba and the North-west Territories with regard to settlement.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I wish to point out that the work of the experimental farm is not in any way connected with teaching people on those farms to do farm work. The experimental farms are for the purpose of investigating facts and truths in connection with the production and utilization of farm crops. That
experimental work is entirely inconsistent with the teaching of ignorant pupils. That must be done by those who have a scientific training. I venture to think that such a system in the experimental farm would involve a radical change in the whole aim and object of those farms, and would be entirely inconsistent with their present work.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Is any portion of this vote used for repairs of buildings at the farms ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: It is used for the purchase of implements, but not for repairs of buildings, which are done by the Public Works Department.
Printing and distribution of reports and bulletins of farms, $4,000.


Air. SCOTT.: I wish to bring to the attention of the minister the fact that there is some complaint made by the farmers that the reports of the experimental farms are much delayed in distribution. Farmers have brought to my attention the fact, for instance, that experiments made in one year are not available to them until the second succeeding season, on account of delays in the distribution. It would be advantageous if the distribution could be made so that the farmers would have the benefit of the reports in the next succeeding year.


The AIINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: In justice to my officers, I must say that invariably, or almost so, the various reports of experimental farms, are placed in the hands of the printer before the 1st of January, in any year. The reason of the long delays lias not been due to any neglect on the part of my officers. In consequence, however, of the complaints that have been made, I have arranged this year with my * colleague, the Secretary of State, who controls the Printing Bureau, to have the report of experimental farms for last year printed more promptly, and it is now being printed, and is almost completed. It was only placed in the hands of the printer on the '27tli or 28tli of December. It is now more than half printed, and I trust that before the close of the session the whole report will be printed and distributed.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The hon. member for Attest Asslniboia (Air. Scott) complained of the lateness of the distribution of this report. The evidence given before the Agriculture Committee, which is largely the same as that contained in the report, is generally printed every session, and a large number of copies are distributed to members of parliament. But the trouble is that although the order is given early in the session with the view of having those reports distributed before the session closes, they are often issued too late, and have to be sent to the members at their homes. I think if a little more expedition was used in the Printing Bureau this report could be

2S60
got out before the session of parliament is over. There are about 20,000 copies printed for distribution by members, and unless they are got out during the session they are of very little use.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I have mentioned that fact to the chairman of the Committee on Agriculture. But I want this committee to know that the Department of Agriculture and the Minister of Agriculture have absolutely nothing whatever to do with the distribution of the evidence which is taken before the Committee on Agriculture. That is purely a matter concerning the Printing Committee of parliament, and the department cannot interfere with it. Some time ago I undertook to do something and I was simply told it was none of my business.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: If I were a Minister of the Crown and I got an answer like that from any department, I would know the reason why. The government are there to control the Printing Bureau.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: No, it is not the Printing Bureau, it is the committee of the House that has control of tthe matter. I have no control over it, 1 cannot go to the Printing Bureau and ask the Bureau to do anything, because they say that it is under the direction of the committee of the House, and they refuse to recognize me as having any authority.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: It depends largely upon the number of employees engaged in that Printing Bureau whether they will turn out the work early or late, and the hon. gentleman, as a member of the government, is responsible to that extent for the action of the Printing Bureau, and he should see that the staff is enlarged. The committee only gives the order, but the order may not be executed by the Printing Bureau as soon as it ought to be. The question is, Why ? There are either not enough hands employed, or they have not enough machinery, or they are dilatory in their work. They must be amenable to the department to which the Printing Bureau belongs.


Uriah Wilson: Are these reports not distributed from the experimental farm to the parties whose names have been given in by members ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: The bulletins ?


Uriah Wilson: Yes.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Yes.
Mi-. WILSON. That is what I thought , so that it does not matter so much whether they are printed before the House rises or not.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: The hon. member for East Grey (Mr. Mr. SPROULE.
Sproule) is discussing the evidence which is given before the Committee on Agriculture.


Uriah Wilson: I mean the evidence.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: That is not distributed from the farm. The farm has nothing at all to do with it.


Uriah Wilson: I do not think I have got a copy of it for two or three years.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: That is because it has not been sent by the committee of the House.


Uriah Wilson: I understood it was distributed from the experimental farm.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: That is an entire mistake.


Uriah Wilson: I furnished a list to the experimental farm of those I wished to be supplied in my riding with these reports and I expected they would get them but they have not gone out. I have been mistaken about that. I think somebody ought to move that these reports should be distributed fairly to the members, and that every constituency should be fairly furnished writh the information that we get before the Agricultural Committee.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I want the hon. gentleman to understand the difference between the evidence taken before the Committee on Agriculture and the reports and bulletins which, are issued from the farm.


Uriah Wilson: I understand the difference.	i


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: If the hon. gentleman understands the difference 1 need say no more.


James Clancy: This is an important question which has arisen more than once in regard to the delay in having reports sent out. For instance the question has come up more than once in connection with the priming of certain departmental reports, the Auditor General's Report, and so on. The hon. minister knows that the standing committee of the House ceases to have any functions when the House rises. Therefore, whatever may be done must be done during the sitting of the House. I would like to ask the hon. gentleman; who is responsible for that ? Does it belong to the Department of the Secretary of State ? Who is the officer who is responsible ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: The officers of the House.


James Clancy: Under Mr. Speaker ? It would be well to learn who is responsible in order that this may be remedied. It is certainly a very great evil and we ought to be able to trace the responsibility to the officer whose duty it is to see that this is done.

As I said before, when tile House rises a standing committee ceases to have existence for tbe purpose of performing the duty involved in this discussion. I would like to ask tbe bon. gentleman if be is able to state, after tbe House rises, whose duty it is to carry out tbe orders of tlie committee so far as they bave gone ?


Tbe MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I cannot tell tbe bon. gentleman wbicli officer of tbe House it is, but it is an officer of tbe House.


Uriah Wilson: Perhaps tbe bon. minister will be able to tell us to what extent tbe annual report of tbe Committee on Agriculture is distributed ? How many are printed?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Tbe evidence which is given before tbe Committee on Agriculture by tbe different officers is ordered to be printed by tbe Committee on Agriculture itself. There was a motion tbe other dayf in tlie committee ordering 20,000 copies to be printed. Tbe committee regulates this for itself. I believe that tbe committee makes a recommendation of that kind which is referred to the Committee on Printing and that the Committee on Printing gives a final decision. I understand by tbe rules of tbe House that if any one of tbe standing committees wants certain things printed it refers its recommendation to the Committee on Printing and the Committee on Printing eventually gives tbe order.


Uriah Wilson: I was asking when the whole report was printed.


Tbe MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: There is no such report of the Committee on Agriculture that I know of.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Tbe lion, member (Mr. Wilson) means the printed evidence.


Tbe MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I think my hon. friend is referring to tlie farm report.


Uriah Wilson: No, I am referring to tlie evidence taken before tbe committee. It is in a form like this report. I want to know to what extent this has been distributed.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: To tbe extent the Printing Committee ordered it.
Mi-. WILSON. You bave nothing to do with it ?	.


Tbe MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Nothing whatever.
Commissioner's branch for agriculture and dairying, including cold storage on steamships, on railways, at warehouses and creameries, and for expenses in connection with trial shipments of products, and for securing improvement and recognition of the quality of Canadian farm products, $140,000.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I would suggest to my hon. friend not to take that item this evening.
It is very, very late and it is a very important item. There is a very thin House and I am sure it cannot be discussed within tlie short time that tbe House will likely bave at its disposal this evening. We have voted a considerable amount and bave spent a considerable time on these estimates. This item connected with transportation is one which will give rise to considerable discus sion.
Tbe MINISTER OF AGRICHux uRE.
I do not wish to urge tbe commiuee. I am quite willing to bave this discussed as mueli as possible. But it is rather early for us to rise at this stage of tbe session at tea minutes to twelve. Perhaps tbe bon. gentleman would take a few of tlie smaller items and let us go on for another half hour ?


Frederick Debartzch Monk: We might take some of the smaller items.


Tbe MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: We will allow No. 83 to stand.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: And 81 as well.


Tbe MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Eighty-four is purely a formal item.


James Clancy: It is very important.


Tbe MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Well then let us take No. 85.
Classifying all Canadian patents and preparing drawings of same for classification and for exchange with the United States in return for their patents, to he paid notwithstanding anything in the Civil Service Act, $5,000.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: There is an increase in this item.


Tbe MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: It is in consequence of tbe fact that we are pushing the work along a little more vigorously, doing more of it and requiring more paper and photographs.
Census, $250,000.


James Clancy: That is a big question.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: That can go through.


Uriah Wilson: Do you expect that amount will finish it ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Tlie last census took more than $500,000. No, I can hardly expect that this year's work will finish it. It is not at all likely.


David Henderson: How much was voted last year for this purpose ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: There was $250,000 voted for this current year, and now I am asking for $250,000 for the coming fiscal year.


David Henderson: That will make $500,
000.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Yes, $500,000, and I expect to have to ask for something for the following year hut nothing like so much. I cannot estimate wliat the whole thing will cost.


David Henderson: When does th# lion, minister expect to be able to give the population of the Dominion ?
The MINISTER OB' AGRICULTURE. I would not like to give the date. It will be probably two or three months after the returns come in before we can give an accurate statement of the population. The returns ought to be largley in by the end of the month, and in the main centres of population we ought to be able to make them up within a couple of months. We have not come to any decision as to whether we would issue reports before the whole of the returns are in. I do not see any objection to issuing the reports for the various divisions when we can get them in, but that is a matter that has not yet been determined upon.


Edward Gawler Prior: I would like to ask the hon. minister how they expect to get a proper census of the population of the country unless they are quicker than they are at present. They wish to know the population of the country on a certain day, on the first of this month. To my certain knowledge there are dozens of places where no one lias seen a census paper yet. it would be impossible for an hotel to tell how many people they had in the house at a certain date, if you ask them a month afterwards. I always understood that In former years the papers were left to be filled in by the householders.
The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE No.


Edward Gawler Prior: It used to be so.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: No. The enumerators carry the forms around, and they ask all their questions with reference to the 1st of April. The forms are not left to be filled in.


Edward Gawler Prior: How could they possibly tell in a large hotel who were there on the 1st of April ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: That is one of the difficulties which is necessarily attendant upon a de jure census which has always been taken in Canada. The same difficulty has arisen in past census, and will in this. I understand, however, that the returns were fairly accurate in that respect in the past, and I trust they will be again on this occasion. It is well understood that in unorganized and thinly-populated centres the work cannot go on so rapidly as in older settled districts. The work has been going on as rapidly as possible, and I hear very satisfactory reports from the officers throughout the country.
While the hon. gentleman (Hon. Mr. Prior) may be correct, that in some of the outlying portions of his province-


Edward Gawler Prior: I was speaking about the capital of the Dominion.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: The enumerators have been at work here since the 1st of April, and they have been going as rapidly as possible from house to house.


Uriah Wilson: Does the minister pretend to say that there is one of these schedules left to be filled in at each house ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: No.


Uriah Wilson: I was not at home when the officer came around, and he left a paper', which I filled in on Saturday last.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: The practice is for the enumerator to fill it in himself.


Andrew B. Ingram: In this city the enumerators are leaving the papers at the different houses to be filled in. I had occasion to look over some of these papers, left by the enumerators at houses in Ottawa, and if there-is any man in the employ of the government who can figure out the answers given in them, he can do more than I can. The questions are not properly answered at all.


Edward Gawler Prior: It is a perfect farce.


Andrew B. Ingram: It is a perfect farce. The proper way is for the enumerator to visit each house and put down the answers intelligently if he knows how, and I suppose he does or he would not be appointed. The way the work is being done in the capital of Canada is a perfect farce. In my own city the enumerators ask the questions and put the answers down intelligently, and when these papers are sent in to the department they will give an intelligent report as to that district, but I have seen some of the papers in Ottawa to-day, and I am sure the officers will never be able to make out what the answers are.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I am afraid that very much the same state of affairs exists in the city of Montreal, and I think the minister should look into it.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I will make inquiries about it.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: The minister spoke about taking up some of the smaller items.


The PRIME MINISTER.: Is not this vote passed now ?


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh, no.


The PRIME MINISTER.: This was only a preliminary skirmish.


David Henderson: 


The MINISTER OP AGRICULTURE.: We will take up some other items, and leave this one for the present.
Fumigating stations, $2,500.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: This is for fumigating the nursery stock imported under the amendment to the San Jos6 Scale Act. At first we prohibited the importation, but we afterwards discovered that it was possible to fumigate the stock so as to completely destroy the scale; We agreed to establish fumigating stations at different ports, similar to the cattle quarantine stations. These stations are : St. John, N.B. ; St. Johns, P.Q. ; Niagara Falls and Windsor, Ont. ; Winnipeg, Man. ; and Vancouver, B.C. We require to appoint, for a short time in the spring and fall of the year, a man to do the fumigating work.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I asked the minister, before we reached this item, if he could give us any information as to what success attended the effort to stamp out the San Josd scale.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: My department is not undertaking to stamp out the scale, except in so far as the entomologist and botanist of the Experimental Farm are giving information by letter, and word of mouth, and visit to any one who asks for information regarding the pest. We are taking no active steps towards stamping it out in the sense that the Ontario government has been taking steps. The San Jose scale exists in Canada only in the province of Ontario, I think. I am not speaking from my own personal knowledge, but from the reports in the newspapers and the debates in the Ontario House, and the statements that are made at public meetings. These sources of information are as available to the hon. gentleman as they are to me, and, perhaps, I may not be correct in every detail as to what I am saying. The Ontario government have been taking active steps in trying to stamp out the scale, and if they cannot stamp it out, to prevent its being spread. One of the most effective steps which I think they have successfully taken has been to require that all nursery stock raised in the province should be fumigated before being distributed by the nursery men. I believe that the nursery men are fumigating the stock, and if they do that there is, I think, not the slightest danger of the spread of the San Jos6 scale from that source. Our work has been directed entirely to protecting this country from the importation of this scale from abroad. We first of all prohibited the importation of nursery stock altogether, but we afterwards amended the Act so as to allow the importation. under certain conditions, which. I believe, will prevent any danger of the importation of the scale. The work has been carried on last fall and last spring, and it has been done thoroughly and satisfactory.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: 
The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: The scale is a thing which spreads from tree to tree and from farm to farm. I am not aware that it has been spreading - to new sections of the country, although I understand that it has been spreading over a slightly greater area in the province of Ontario than it was before. I think, too, it has been found in some parts where it was not believed to be before; but it was found on old trees, and not on nursery stock. The statement that fumigation is ineffectual is entirely unfounded. On the contrary, we have had no reports of any eases from nursery stock which has come into the country and has been fumigated at ' those stations; and as the matter is largely in the minds of the horticulturists and tree-growers, I am sure the fact would have been reported to us had the scale been so found.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The hon. gentleman attributed to me a statement which I did not make. I asked if the fumigation was effectual, or could it be that the scale was spread through that means ? I noticed a report last fall that while the scale was at first thought to be confined to a limited area in the Niagara district, it was afterwards found in different districts between Niagara and the Western Peninsula, and that it was believed to be spreading with

considerable rapidity. I also saw in the same communication that the Department of Agriculture had abandoned the idea of eradicating the scale from the country. .	,


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: You have reference to the Department of Agriculture for Ontario, not to this department.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I understood it applied both to the Department of Agriculture of Ontario and the department here as well.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: No.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The first proposal was, of course, to destroy the trees on which the scale was found and to fumigate the stock. 1 understood that that first plan was abandoned.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: All the work the hon. gentleman is discussing was the work of the department at Toronto, not of this department at all.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: This department outlined the methods by which it was thought it could be eradicated, and it was proposed to take up the work jointly with the Department of Agriculture for Ontario.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: No.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The hon. gentleman says no, but I remember the discussion distinctly. The question was asked, why keep it out if there is no effort to stop it in the country, and the answer was that the Department of Agriculture lor Ontario would endeavour to destroy it in the country, and the effort of this department would be directed to prevent its importation, and by these joint means we would hope to get rid of it. It is quite clear that one or both were out in their judgment, and that the means adopted were not as effectual as it whs thought at that time they would be. It may be that we are preventing the importation of it, and yet it may be found after a while that we are not.
Tracadie Lazaretto, $5,500.


Edward Gawler Prior: Last year, the hon. minister will remember, I brought up the case of the Chinese lepers in British Columbia. I pointed out to him how manifestly unfair it was that the government had not taken charge of those lepers. At the present time and for many years past the cities of Victoria and Vancouver have had to pay for the maintenance of those lepers. Large sums of money are collected every year from the Chinese who land in British Columbia, as head tax-over $200,000, the larger proportion of which goes into the Dominion treasury. I am well aware what the minister said last year with regard to the lepers in New Brunswick-that the Dominion government were obliged to take Mr. SPROULE.
care of them, because they had agreed to do so when New Brunswick entered confederation. But it was also proved at that time by documents which I read from, that the Dominion government had taken charge of lepers from Nova Scotia and Manitoba; and my contention, and that of all British Columbians, is that if the Dominion government do that, they ought also to take charge of those poor wretches in British Columbia. It is costing $1,000 or $1,100 a year to maintain those men on D'Arcy Island, and the former government used to allow $1,000 a year for this purpose; but since the present government came into power-


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: That is not an accurate statement of fact.


Edward Gawler Prior: Well, they have not paid anything for the last two or three years. I would not say that they did not pay the first year or the second year; but they certainly stojjped it; and they have not paid a cent for the last two or three years for the maintenance of those lepers. It seems outrageous that the government should treat British Columbia in that manner. What is the reason British Columbia cannot expect the same treatment from the government as Nova Scotia and Manitoba ? There is not a man in British Columbia but thinks the same as I do with regard to that matter-that it is unfair to make flesh of one and fish of another. I cannot understand it unless it is because Victoria has always sent Conservatives here to represent it. I would like to ask the hon. gentleman on what ground he has refused persistently to maintain these lepers in British Columbia ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I stated a few moments ago that the hon. gentleman's statement was not accurate. I understood him to lead the House to believe that the Conservative government had paid $1,000 a year for several years.


Edward Gawler Prior: So they did.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: The hon. gentleman is incorrect. They paid it one year. They did not pay it the year before I came into office, and it has not been paid since.


Edward Gawler Prior: They paid it more than one year.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: The hon. gentleman says so; I say they did not. It was open for discussion at the time, and I looked into the matter and decided it was not necessary or proper that the department should pay, and I declined to pay it.


Edward Gawler Prior: For what reason?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Because it was a matter affecting the public

health of British Columbia, with which the people of British Columbia should deal.


Edward Gawler Prior: Why adopt a different practice in Manitoba ?


The MINISTER OP AGRICULTURE.: Because the lepers in Manitoba were immigrants who had come in through the departmental work of this government, and therefore this government was responsible for their presence in the country.


Edward Gawler Prior: Is not the Dominion government responsible for the Chinese who come in to British Columbia ?


The MINISTER OP AGRICULTURE.: No, not more than for the Japanese or for the hon. gentleman himself, who were not brought in as Immigrants by the department, but came in of their own accord.


Edward Gawler Prior: What about the Lazaretto at Tracadie ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I need not go into the question of the responsibility of the Dominion government to the province of New Brunswick in this matter of the Lazaretto, because that is ancient history.


Edward Gawler Prior: The excuse given by the hon. gentleman for his manner of dealing with British Columbia is a miserable subterfuge. I see no reason why the government should not, out of the $200 000 and more paid into the Dominion treasury by the Chinese as head tax, take a sum sufficient to meet this expense. The hon. gentleman is mistaken in saying that the late government paid only one year. They paid two or three years, and the last year' they did not refuse to pay, but had the question under discussion.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: It is quite clear that this is a matter which comes under the charge of the Department of Agriculture, because that department has charge of the quarantine stations, and if these men.were admitted, owing to insufficient inspection, the department should pay the cost of taking charge of them.


The MINISTER OP AGRICULTURE.: There is nothing to show that they had the disease when they passed through the quarantine.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: That is a matter on which there is considerable room for doubt, and if these people were affected with leprosy when they came into the country, then they should have been kept in quarantine or sent home again, and if the department failed in its duty, this government ought to pay the cost.


Mr. ROSS (South Ontario).: How many lepers are there in British Columbia ?


Edward Gawler Prior: Five or six in the Lazaretto.


William Ross: Is the number increasing ?


Edward Gawler Prior: It remains about the same. Occasionally one or two die and one or two others will come in.
Winnipeg and St. Boniface hospitals, $4,000.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Are these ordinary hospitals or quarantine hospitals ?


The MINISTER OP AGRICULTURE.: One of these is for Protestants, and the other for Catholics, and this government contributes this amount because they take in immigrants who have no homes.
Mr. McCltEARY. I think that this item ought to be increased by a further vote in the supplementaries. This is the same amount as was allowed these hospitals eight or ten years ago, when the number of patients was only half what it is now, and the cost of living was not so high. The maintenance of these institutions is a very heavy drain on the people of Winnipeg, St. Boniface and Manitoba generally, and a large number of the patients are immigrants just newly arrived. Last year one of the cases was that of a gentleman who was passing through from Japan, and who had to be taken to the hospital to be treated for a malignant attack of small-pox. The new wing, which the citizens of Winnipeg had put up at a cost of $87,000 had just been opened and furnished, and the admission of this patient caused a great deal of damage and loss to that institution. The city corporation pays $10,000 a year to the General Hospital, and the government of the province $16,000 a year, I believe. The St. Boniface General Hospital, which is controlled by the sisters, and is equally a general hospital, because it admits Protestants as well as Catholics, it has a grant also from the province. This government should certainly give more to these institutions than it does, because the larger number of the patients are people who have only been in the country a short time, many of them merely passing through on their way to the coast, You would be surprised to know the percentage of the patients in that hospital who have not been in the country a year.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Is there any account kept of those immigrants who are merely passing through ?


William Forsythe McCreary: The report shows the number, and over 50 per cent of the people are patients who have not been in the country three years. I submit that this vote should be doubled and would ask the government to give my appeal their best consideration.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: According to the decision of the minister in the previous ca.se, this government would not pay anything, because these people had developed the disease


'2871 COMMONS
[Stage Direction]
after they passed the quarantine stations, and consequently the province should pay the cost.
Mr. McCREARy. Tliis man Mathewson, who was afflicted with malignant smallpox, must have caught the disease on hoard the vessel.
Thomas Simpson Sproule: The quarantine stations are at Vancouver and down in the east. Now, it must come in from the east or the west. If there is any evidence of disease they are supposed to he retained in quarantine until the danger is over, and if it breaks out afterwards it becomes the duty of the municipality to bear the expense of looking after them. I do not think that is right, because a few years ago the city of Winnipeg was put to a heavy expense on account of a smallpox that had been brought in by some immigrants. It must have been with them when they came through the quarantine at Quebec, and therefore the government should have borne the expense. On the same principle, it seems to me, the city of Victoria should not be called upon to bear the expense to which it has been subjected.


James Clancy: We could not well open the door to that. The cases are exceptional. Both the province of Quebec and the province of Ontario take care of such patients by grants to hospitals.
Mr. MeCREARY. In the older provinces the cities and large towns are close together. And they are wealthier and better able to take care of the people. But when a man leaves Ottawa he does not strike another point where there is a hospital until he reaches Winnipeg. If lie contracts disease at North Bay or Sudbury he is taken by the conductor of the train straight through to Winnipeg. They are not even taken off at Port Arthur. In the same way, coming from Vancouver they are taken through to Winnipeg. Consequently, Winnipeg: and St. Boniface hospitals have to take care of all the people who become ill while travelling between Ottawa and Vancouver. Why, if a man is hurt on the Canadian Pacific Railway track eight hundred miles east or west, he is conveyed to Winnipeg. It is true that within the last two or three years, largely by the action of the Canadian Pacific Railway and its officials and labouring men, small hospitals have been established at Medicine Hat and other points. Still, a large majority of the patients are sent to Winnipeg.


Uriah Wilson: But are not the people who travel generally of a class who are able to pay for themselves ? It may be that now and again there is an immigrant who must be taken care of by others, but generally people who travel can afford to pay their own way.
Mr. MeCREARY. Thq lion, gentleman (Mr. Wilson) would be surprised if he were Mr. SPROULE.
to go through these institutions as I have done and study the records. Many of the patients are servant girls recently from the old country, and young men who have come out from the old country to make a living. Many of these young men are not accustomed to outdoor life or hard work or hardship, and when exposed to them they take sick. Even after they get out of the hospital, they have to be taken care of until fully recovered by the city, which has a central relief fund of $5,000 or $10,000 a year.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: The reason I asked the figure is because Winnipeg is peculiarly situated, and if it is true that the expense is incurred through immigrants, I think we would be justified in coming to the relief of that city. I think the case of Victoria is even stronger, because disease originates in a class of immigrants to whom special exception has been taken, and upon whom the government imposes a tax, thus raising a revenue. If you gave relief in one case, you must in the other.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: While we have left aside the large votes, we have made fair progress, and I move that the committee rise and report progress, and ask leave to sit again.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and some resolutions reported.
The PRIME MINISTER (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier) moved the adjournment of the House.
Frederick Debartzch Monk: What business will be taken up to-morrow ?


The PRIME MINISTER.: If the Minister of Railways and Canals is in his seat and able to proceed, we shall take up the estimates of his department. If not. we will proceed with some Bills and then estimates.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Estimates of which department ?


The PRIME MINISTER.: Agriculture.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House adjourned at 12.30 a.m., Friday.

[Stage Direction]
Fbidat, April 12, 1901.