1902-02-25

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 7) respecting the Canada Southern Railway Company.-Mr. Ingram.

Mr.  F. D.@: MONK (Jacques Cartier) moved for leave to introduce Bill (No. 8) to amend the Interpretation Act.


The PRIME MINISTER (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier).: Will the hon. gentleman kindly explain.


Mr. MONK.: The object of this Bill is to declare more clearly in the Interpretation Act that company's incorporated by the Federal parliament or acting under charter from Federal authority are, nevertheless, subject, in each province, as regards damages or torts, to the civil law of that pro-

vince. The necessity for that law has become apparent from the recent decision of the Privy Council in the cases of the Can-andian Pacific Railway Company vs. Roy. In this case our courts decided that, though a railway company incorporated by and subject to the Federal law was authorized to prosecute its business, it nevertheless was subject to the law of our province as regards damages. The effect of the decision was that if an engine of the company, though worked with all the necessary appliances to secure immunity from fire, should cause a fire in the course of its use in the business of the company, the company was liable for the damages occasioned by that fire. That was the unanimous decision of our courts. It was held, however, in England, conformably, as I understand, to the English law, that when a railway company is incorporated and authorized to prosecute its business, and when it prosecutes that business with all the necessary precautions, it is not liable in damages. Consequently it has been thought necessary that an Act should be passed to declare that in our province although railway companies are incorporated by Dominion charter, they are nevertheless subject, under the constitutional Act, to the Civil Code of Lower Canada as regards damages.


Mr. FRASER.: Might I ask the hon. gentleman if it refers to the province of Quebec alone ?


Frederick Debartzch Monk: It does not refer to the province of Quebec alone, but the main disposition declares that laws of that nature will apply to the whole of Canada.
But no law, power of privilege granted by a Federal law, or a charter emanating under some Federal law will have for effect to remove any person or company from the responsibility which it would incur under the civil law or the common law of each province in the exercise of such right, power or privilege.
It merely declares that in cases such as the one I have just described, the civil law of each province will apply, conformably to the dispositions of the Constitutional Act of 1SG7.


Mr. W. F. MACLEAN (East York).: The question raised by the hon. gentleman (Mr. Monk) is a very timely one, and it is coming up in this House in another respect in regard to the Bell Telephone Company. That company is incorporated under Dominion law, and yet it claims to override the municipal law of Ontario in so far as taking possession of streets is concerned. I imagine that question will come before the House this session. The contention of the Bell Telephone Company all along has been, as against the municipalities, that because it is incorporated under a Dominion Act it does not come under the municipal law. Now, I
believe it was laid down in this parliament some years ago that a company so incorporated, no matter what rights they alleged had been given to it in its charter, was still subject to the municipal law, and that it did not require an exact definition of what its rights were, of a clause protecting the municipality. But the question is coming up, and it may come up in a very wide way.
I am glad the hon. gentleman has introduced this Bill for the purpose of making the whole question clear.


Mr.   I@: I may add to the remarks made by the hon. member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) that this Bill is a very timely one, because, according to a recent decision rendered by the Privy Council in the case just cited, that of Roy and the Canadian Pacific Railway, the jurisprudence of our courts in the province of Quebec has been completely reversed. In that case, it was decided by our courts, that the railway company was responsible for damages caused to a settler in the northern district of Montreal, and the judgment so rendered by the Superior Court was unanimously confirmed by the Court of King's Bench. The same jurisprudence has been upheld by the Supreme Court of Canada in cases arising in the province of Quebec. But when we go before the Privy Council the whole jurisprudence, all the precedents, are reversed, and a new jurisprudence is created. The above judgment, I may say, has caused an uneasy feeling in the province of Quebec. Our judges have been slighted and our law has been completely ignored. We have been told by their Lordships of the Privy Council, that in matters of damages and torts we are to be governed by the English common law. With all due respect to that law, I may say that we, in the province of Quebec intend to maintain the system of laws and the customs which have been granted and secured to us by the constitution of this country. I think the Bill presented by my hon. friend from Jacques Cartier is a timely one, and ought to receive the full support of this House. *


The PRIME MINISTER (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier).: My sympathies are altogether along the lines enunciated by the hon. member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) and by the hon. member for Gaspe (Mr. Lemieux). But my hon. friend from Jacques Cartier, I am sure, who is an eminent counsel, cannot fail to realize that it is questionable whether the legislation which he has in view will remedy the evil which he seeks to remedy. The question is whether we can at the present time evade the powers which have been granted to us under a Federal Act. I doubt if we can do so. But the question which my hon. friend has raised is not a new one. That question is as to what extent a charter granted by the parliament of Canada can invade a disposition

of the Federal Act which provides that civil rights are under the control of local legislatures. There is a line of demarkation between the two, but it is sometimes difficult of application. Whenever we give a charter to a railway company we necessarily invade private property. For instance, we give to the chartered railway company the power of expropriating a property for the benefit of the company. That is clearly an invasion of civil rights. Still there is no doubt whatever that parliament has power to invade civil rights to that extent, in other words, there is no doubt that we have the right to invade civil rights so far as it may be necessary to carry out the object of the franchise which is given by the Federal parliament. But here is a question : How far can these aivil rights be invaded ? That they may be invaded to the extent of accomplishing everything which is the consequence of the charter given, there can be no doubt whatever. But there is a great doubt whether the consequences which are not the immediate consequences of the charter, can be invaded. In the case which has been cited, as stated by the hon. member for Jacques Cartier, the circumstances were these : The Canadian Pacific Railway Company had committed a tort against an individual, unwillingly and unwittingly, that is to say, a spark which blew from an engine set fire to a barn and destroyed it. Under the civil law of the province of Quebec, which is certainly, in my estimation, most just and most equitable, the company would have been responsible, even if it had taken all the precautions which it could take before the accident. Under the common law, as X understand it, which prevails in England, the moment a company had done everything that could reasonably be done, when they had taken all the precautions they could take under such circumstances, they would not be liable for the consequences. Well, the Court of Appeal of the province of Quebec determined that under such circum-stances'the law of the province would apply, and the company would be liable for the tort. The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council decided to the contrary. I do not know that the evil which it is sought to remedy will be covered by the Bill introduced by my bon. friend; I doubt it very much, because we cannot infringe upon a Federal Act. But in my opinion the judgment of the Court of Appeals of Quebec was the better judgment of the two. I think that is the law, and not the interpretation laid down by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council.


Air. T. CHASE CASGRAIN (Montmorency).: I have no doubt the Bill which my hon. friend from Jacques Cartier has introduced should pass in some way, if not in the terms in which it is drafted, at all events


Sir WILFRID LAURIER.: in such terms as will relieve those who suffer under circumstances similar to those suffered by this man Roy.
I do not quite agree with what my hon. friend from Gaspe (Mr. Lemieux) said when he stated to the House that the Privy Council had held that this question should be decided according to the law of England and not according to the law of the province of Quebec. As I read the judgment, their lordships came to the conclusion that the common law of the province of Quebec was similar to the common law of England and they decided it according to the principles of the English law, which they stated were also the principles of the law of the province of Quebec. The whole question turned upon the interpretation of article 1053 of our Civil Code, which says that if damage is caused by any fault, whether by an unskilful act or neglect, the person is responsible in damages. But their lordships asked : How can it be possible that there will be fault upon the party if the act complained of is authorized by statute ? The present charter of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company gives the railway company not only permission to run its railway but directs that it shall be run in such a way and on the line which is set out and this becomes part of its charter by following the provisions of the general Railway Act. Therefore, their lordships said this Act being authorized by statute-the particular Act being authorized by a particular statute-there could be no fault upon the company and therefore the case would not fall within the purview of article 1053 of the Civil Code. On the other hand there is a principle of our legislation, which exists in all legislation, and it is that nobody can be expropriated without an indemnity being paid to him. If a railway line is run across the country those whose lands are taken have a compensation fixed either by arbitration or otherwise. Their lands cannot be taken without an indemnity being paid to them, and also those whose lands are injuriously affected, whose lands in part are taken and whose lauds are injuriously affected by the passing of a railway have a remedy. They are to be indemnified, but the difficulty, as far is I know the jurisprudence of the country, has been that every one cannot be indemnified for the passing of a railway unless a part of the land is taken in such a way that when a part of the land is taken not only should the party receive compensation for the land "taken, but also compensation for the other part of the land which has been injuriously affected by the passing of the railway. If no part of the land is taken then a party has no right and cannot be compensated for the reason of being injuriously affected by the passing of a railway. For instance, here is land which has a barn on the line of railway. The railway company by operating its line sets

fire to this barn. The owner of this property is expropriated just as much as if the company took his barn. But, the law does not give him any remedy. I think that this man should be compensated just as much as if his land, or barn, had been taken for the purpose of the railway and probably when the question comes to be studied in committee, a Bill can be drafted so that not only those whose lands are taken and injuriously affected by the passing of a railway may be compensated, but also those upon whose lands a railway does not pass, or whose lands are not taken, but whose lands are injuriously affected may also be compensated. It seems to me that there lies the remedy to meet the case, and that it would be only fair and equitable that such a person should be indemnified. On these lines compensation could be given and a proper remedy provided in such a case, as the circumstances should warrant.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the first time.

[Stage Direction]
House in Committee of Supply.
Archives, $8,000.
['Last year when this item came before the House, I asked that it be increased, but I find that it still remains at the same figure. I think it is well to draw the attention of the Minister of Agriculture and of the committee to the fact', 'that these two hospitals are practically doing Dominion work. Most of the members of this committee are aware that we have coming into that province now pretty nearly 50,000 people per year, coming from Europe, from Great Britain and from the United States. We have two hospitals there, the St. Boniface hospital, under the supervision of the Roman Catholic Church, but which is by no means confined to members of that church, it is a general hospital in every particular; then we have the general hospital at Winnipeg. But I want to say that nearly one-tliird of all the patients treated in these, hospitals are immigrants who have arrived either at once or within a year. Now, is it fair to the people of the west that they should be asked to support these hospitals when the balance of Canada gets the benefit ? I think this item should be increased to at least $10,000, and should be distributed equally between the two hospitals. It should be charged, if that can be done, to the Department of Agriculture, if not, then to the Interior Department. I know when the Minister of the Interior comes to lay his estimates before this House, and when the Minister of Finance comes to make his budget speech, they will both boast of the great progress the west is making, of the large number of immigrants coming in; they will both talk in loud tones of the large quantity of wheat being exported from that country, and undoubtedly will talk loudly of the great progress of the west. If that is so, why should they not contribute at least something to help the sick of those people who come to the west to create that wealth ? I think my hon. friend from Provenclier (Mr. LaRiviere) will back me up in saying that the amount voted for these two hospitals is too small, that the Dominion govern-men should pay at least $10,000, to be divided equally between them.\nMr. LaRIVIERB. We had in the estimates in former years the sum of $10,000 for these two institutions. I am sorry it has been decreased, not so much by the present government as by the former one. At any rate, tlie amount is quite inadequate, as my hon. friend from Selkirk (Mr. McCreary) said; because these two institutions are performing the duty of taking care of sick people not only for Manitoba but for the Northwest. When immigrants arriving at Winnipeg take sick, as they frequently do after the long sea voyage, they are sent to either one of these two institutions regardless of creed or nationality. They are both general hospitals. In fact, I may say that the St. Boniface hospital, though known to be a Roman Catholic institution, cares for more Protestants than Roman Catholics. I agree with my hon. friend who has just spoken, and join him in begging the government to reconsider their recommendation and to increase the amount which is offered to these two institutions.\nMr. McCreary.\nSome resolutions reported.\nOn motion of the Minister of Finance, House adjourned at 11.30 p.m.', 'Wednesday, February 26th, 1902.']
Mr. CLANCY.: Mr. Chairman, I would like to suggest to the hon. Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Fisher) that I think time would be gained by not going on with these estimates to-day. The hon. gentleman weii kqows the House has only been a very few days in session and that lion, members on neither side of the House have had any time whatever to consult the reports that I confess have been promptly brought down. I think we would gain time by giving a reasonable opportunity for hon. members on both sides of the House to consult the reports. These are important estimates and while I have no desire whatever to delay them I think we should have time to look somewhat into the reports.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE (Hon. Sydney Fisher).: I may say, in the first place, that notice was given to the leader of the ojiposition (Mr. Borden, Halifax) last night that these estimates would be taken up to-day, and in the second place, I may say that the report of the department was laid on the Table of the House on Friday last, so that it has been in the hands of hon. members for three or four days. Of course, I have no desire at all to press hon. members opposite, or to debar them from every opportunity of discussing these estimates, or of getting all the information possible, but, I think, perhaps, that the business of the House would be unduly interfered with and delayed if the estimates are not taken up. If these estimates are not gone on with it practically means that none can be, because the estimates of the other 11



[Stage Direction]
departments are just in the same position. I do not see very well therefore how, with due consideration for the progress of the work of the session, we can delay taking up the estimates. I will ask the hon. gentleman to allow them to proceed, of course, With all necessary discussion which he and liis friends wish to give to them.
James Clancy: I think there is a disposition on this side of the House to take as little time as is absolutley necessary to have some intelligent discussion. I hardly thought for a moment that the hon. gentleman (Mr. Fisher) would urge, that the reports having been placed for three or four days in the hands of hon. members on this side of the House was a reason for proceeding at once. Unless they are more apt than 1 think hon. members of this House are, we will be able to have nothing like intelligent criticism. Time would be saved if a reasonable opportunity were given to members to look into these reports. We are in the early days of the session, and while I value the importance of doing some work each day, yet it would be better to have the criticism an intelligent one.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I fully appreciate the necessity for an intelligent understanding of the details of the department, but I would suggest with a view of expediting the business of parliament that there are many items which have never been the subject of very great criticism.


James Clancy: They might be now.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: They might be now, and the hon. gentleman is fully within his rights in criticising them. However, the argument of the hon. gentleman amounts to the contention that under no circumstances can estimates be taken up early in the session, because the reports can only be laid upon the table of the House at the opening of the session. We went into Supply last week and no objection was taken. I do not think we should call a halt to-day and practically suspend the business of the House. I hope the hon. gentleman (Mr. Clancy) will appreciate the reasonableness of this suggestion. Should any controversial item come up, I will be glad to allow it to stand ; and if there is any information which the hon. gentleman wishes and which I cannot supply at the spur of the moment I will be very much pleased to let the item stand until I get that information. If the hon. gentleman's contention is maintained, it would mean that no work would be taken up to-day and that would be rather unfortunate.


James Clancy: The members on both sides of the House should have a reasonable time for consulting these reports, and if the work of the House cannot go on by reason


EDITION
[Stage Direction]
of no other business being ready that is the fault of the government. So far as I am concerned, and in order to facilitate business. I will give the minister notice in advance, so far as I can, of what information X may require so that it will be on hand when needed. I confess that I have not had time to open a book. When the minister says that these items usually have gone unchallenged, that is no argument, because reasons may present themselves this year why they should be sharply criticised.
The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: The argument of my hon. friend (Mr. Clancy) means not merely that we should not proceed with these estimates, but that we should not proceed with any estimates, because his criticism would apply to all others.


James Clancy: I have not been discussing the other estimates. I speak particularly of these.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: But the same reasons given by the hon. gentleman will apply to all the other departments as well as to the Department of Agriculture.


James Clancy: They are good reasons.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: If they are good reasons they should have been given at the beginning when we commenced Supply last week. Hon. gentlemen opposite, with the object of proceeding as rapidly as possible with the estimates, did not take that objection. The leader of the Opposition asked me last evening what estimates would come up to-day, and I told him that we would take the estimates of the Department of Agriculture. Every reasonable provision has been made to meet the wishes of hon. gentlemen opposite, and when the minister states that he will allow any controversial items to stand over until he can supply the information required, I think that ought to commend itself to the fairness of lion, gentlemen opposite.


James Clancy: Although there is no increase in this vote I hope the minister will give us some information as to the nature of the expenditure. There are some new members of the House who probably have given this only a passing notice.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I am very happy indeed to meet the desire of the hon. gentleman (Mr. Clancy). This vote is for the purpose of carrying out the work whieh has been entrusted to Mr. Brymner, Dominion Archivist. He issues every year an annual report dealing with the historical documents and incidents in the history of Canada. This report is considered by students, and by every one who is interested in the history of our country, to be of the utmost value. Numerous endor-sations of this work have come to my predecessors as they have come to me. About Hon. Mr. FISHER.
half of the vote, roughly speaking, is expended to pay the salary of the Dominion Archivist and his small staff at Ottawa. A great deal of the work is done in Europe, and about $4,000 is expended in the investigation of W'orks in the British Museum and the Bibliotheque Nationale in Paris, and in the transcription of documents relating to the history of Canada. The Archivist himself, from his knowledge of these libraries, indicates what works and documents ought to be copied, and we have in Paris an officer whose duty it is to search in the records there for papers and items connected with the early history of Canada. The expenditure is represented by the salary of that gentleman and the expense of copying in London and Paris. The work here is carried on by Dr. Brymner, with a clerk, a binder, and a young lady who answers letters and makes copies. We also have to buy standard periodicals to keep up the record from day to day, and occasionally books, which are available and useful in connection with Canadian history.
Mr. LaRIVIERE. For how many years has the copying of these documents been going on in London and Paris ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I could not state the exact time, but practically ever since the archivist has been at work. There was an assistant archivist for many years, a Mr. Marmette, who died some time ago, and I appointed as his successor Mr. Richard, shortly after coming into office. There was a slight interregnum during which there was no person in Paris, but the copying went on. When I came into office I found that there was a large mass of material which Mr. Marmette indicated ought to be copied. The work must have been going on for about 15 years.
Mr. LaRIVIERE. By this time I should think whole libraries might be copied.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Oh, no ; there are hundreds of thousands of volumes.


Mr. INGRAM.: How many of these reports are circulated, and to whom are they given ? Does the department furnish them free to the different historical societies ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: This report is a supplement to the report of the Minister of Agriculture, and is printed by order of the House, as are all other documents which are laid on the Table. I could not say off-hand just how many are supplied to the department. The department has a certain number given to it, which the archivist distributes to certain scientific and educational bodies in the country regularly, and there are a number of copies available for persons who are interested in these subjects, and frequently apply for them.


Andrew B. Ingram: The different historical societies would be very glad to receive this report, and if they are not supplied with them now, I think the department would do well to supply them.


Mr. TAYLOR.: I would like to ask the minister what was the amount in the estimates for this service in the year 1895-6 1
The	MINISTER	OF	AGRICULTURE.


George Taylor: Then, why has the amount been increased $2,000 in the last five years?
The	MINISTER	OF	AGRICULTURE.
More work has been done.
Sir.	TAYLOR.	More	employment for
friends of the government.
The	MINISTER	OF	AGRICULTURE.I may	say that out	of- this $8,000 is paid
the salary of the gentleman in Paris, whereas formerly it was paid out of the civil government contingencies. I think, speaking from memory, that he was paid $1,500.


James Clancy: Will the minister state to the committee how much is paid for each service ?
The	MINISTER	OF	AGRICULTURE.
Mr. Richard is paid $1,400, Mr. Pennington, the binder, $804, Miss McKay, who is described as a stitcher, $400, and Miss Casey, a clerk, $600, making $3,204. The amount required for the London office is $4,000. That includes the expenditure in Paris, which goes through the High Commissioner's office. The purchase of periodicals and newspapers, binding, and some travelling expenses, make up $796. These items make up the $8,000.


James Clancy: The hon. gentleman has not given us the expenditure for each service in the London office.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: It is entirely for copying, which is paid for as it is done at a certain rate per folio. There are four or five people in London and several in Paris. I have not the details of the amount paid to each. The items are brought in monthly from the High Commissioner's office, the money is sent over there, and the details are managed there.
Mr. LaRIVIERE. Is this copying done by Canadians appointed by the government here ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: It is done by people who have been copying in the libraries for years. In London it is done chiefly by women, and in Paris chiefly by men. I cannot give the names of the people employed in London, but they are people of London who are engaged there. Ill
I do not know whether they are Canadians, or English, or what they are.


Mr. HENDERSON.: I think it is just as well that we should not hasten too rapidly over this item. It is a very interesting one, as is anything connected with the history of our country. I would like to learn from the minister how far down the copying of these records has proceeded-whether it has reached the beginning of the last century, or the middle of it. For my part, I have always regarded the archives as rather dry reading, and have spent very little time over them. I do not doubt the desirability of a proper and sufficient record of interesting historical facts being made and preserved in our vaults. I do not suppose it is the intention of the minister to continue the work from year to year down to the present time, because it seems to me that when you reach a certain period, the records which we have will be amply sufficient for the purpose ; or is it the purpose to continue this work from year to year in order to give persons employment and to spend a little more of the money of the tax-payers of this country ?
The MINISTER OB' AGRICULTURE. I can assure the hon. gentleman that this work is not going on for any such purpose, but for the purpose of obtaining information which Dr. Brymner, the Dominion archivist, who has been at the head of this branch since its inception and, whose reputation is very high both inside and outside of Canada because of the work he has done, thinks it necessary to obtain. These documents are not available to Canadians ordinarily. I may refer to my annual report which states :
The state papers for Lower Canada published in this report, including the years 1836 and 1837, contain the correspondence of the Earl of Gosford, who was sent out as the head of the commission to investigate grievances. Those for Upper Canada contain the final correspondence of Sir John Colborne, afterwards Lord Seaton, and the appointment of Sir F. B. Head, who succeeded him, with copies of dispatches addressed to him in 1835 and 1836.
The House will see, therefore, that the work which is covered by the report of this year deals chiefly with the troublous times of 1835-6-7, a time sufficiently removed to be called historic in the young life of this nation.


Andrew B. Ingram: But there is very slight reference to these documents in the report, and members of the House and others can have but little idea of what those documents show. Would it not be better to have more extended account of these documents given in the report ? It would make a more bulky volume but it would give Information in a form more satisfactory to the public.


James Clancy: Perhaps the minister could tell us what the instructions were that Dr. Brymner sent to the high commissioners to have these papers copied, or might, possibly, give us a copy of those instructions. As my hon. friend from East Elgin (Mr. Ingram) points out the report is so meagre that the reader cannot draw intelligent conclusions from it. Perhaps the hon. gentleman will be able to give that information and, if he has it, a copy of that report, that we may see what work is being done there. There is now in the neighbourhood of $4,000 spent on the London office; but, so far as anything disclosed in the report is concerned, there seems to be little explanation of it.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Of course, the report of my department does not contain this information; it is to be found in the report of the archivist, which is a supplement to the report of the department. Dr. Brymner's instructions to the people in London are of the ordinary nature of departmental instructions from the head of a branch to those under him. I might bring down the letters Dr. Brymner has written to the London office in the course of the year, but I fancy they would not be very instructive or ,interesting to the House. I know I would not care to read them myself. The hon. member for East Elgin (Mr. Ingram) speaks of the report of the archivist not being a summary of the documents, but I think, perhaps he did not apprehend what I tried to explain. The copying is not done for the report of the archivist. The documents are put upon the shelves of the archivist's office, and there they can be consulted by students. The report comprises a list of the documents and also, generally, papers on some particular subject-I mean articles taking up some particular phases or periods of our history. This conveys a great deal of information for the public; but students wlfo wish to consult the documents are expected to visit the archivist's office and consult them there. It would be Impossible to print all the papers that are copied; or, at least, it would make a large addition to the report each year and would greatly increase the cost of printing.


Andrew B. Ingram: I have been spoken to on this subject by members of historical societies. It is of no particular advantage to many of the members of such societies to know that they can come here and consult the documents. Nor can these students obtain such information by consulting the reports as they are now compiled. But whether it would be wise to extend the report so as to cover, more or less the information I suggest, is a matter, it seems to me, worthy of consideration by the minister. It certainly would add to the practical value to the public of the report.


Andrew B. Ingram: 


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I will speak to the archivist on the subject.


James Clancy: The hon. gentleman (Hon. Mr. Fisher) has stated that there has been a considerable increase since 1896. The expenses were about $6,000 in 1896, and they are about $8,000 now. I think the committee would like to know the reason of that increase-what portion of the service has been increased and what additional work is done.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: In reply to the hon. member for South Leeds (Mr. Taylor), I pointed out a few minutes ago-the hon. member for Bothwell (Mr. Clancy) could not have heard me-that, before 1896, the salary of one officer in Paris, then $1,500 a year, was paid out of civil government through my department, but it is now paid out of this vote. The salary now is $1,400, but paying it out of this vote, accounts for by far the greater part of the increase of $2,000. The rest is due to the fact that more work is done and a larger number of documents are being copied year by year.
Mr. LaRIVIERE. Though I have been asking for information about the archivist's branch, it must not be supposed that I am opposed to the expenditure made with the object of securing information bearing upon the history of our country. I read every report made by Dr. Brymner, and I regard the compilation that is brought down every year as a very important one. I approve of the efforts that are made to get at the documents lying at the archives both at London and at Paris, because they throw light upon the general history of our country, and also because they form part of our political history. These are most important documents and we read them with interest when they come to us. I can readily understand that they cannot all be published because they would be too voluminous and some are of much less importance than others. Still they are so classified that we can readily refer to them and get copies, if required for any special purposes. I would ask the hon. minister if the allowance of $1,400 to Mr. Edouard Richard in Paris is all he gets for his expenses and salary 1


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Yes.
Mr. LaRIVIERE. Mr. Richard is certainly a very good ma,n and very well qualified for the position, but he is not paid commensurately with the services he renders. I cannot understand how a man of his ability will l'emain in Paris for the paltry salary of $1,400 a year. I can speak more freely with regard to Mr. Richard perhaps than any other member of this House because he was the first opponent I had when

I presented myself for election to the House of Commons, and X, therefore, cannot he charged with being biased in his favour by my political opinions. I believe him to be thoroughly qualified for the position and to be very poorly paid.
Patent Record, $12,000.


George Taylor: There is an increase here of $3,000 over the estimate of 1895-6. How does the hon. gentleman account for that ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: By the increase in the number of patents and of publications. We are publishing all the trade marks and the list of the copyrights and this whole expenditure is for printing.


Andrew B. Ingram: Is it the intention of the government to amend the Patent Act this session? Every session we are called on to pass legislation renewing patents that have lapsed, and if the government would amend the Patent Act we might be relieved from that work entirely.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: If I understand the hon. gentleman rightly, he wishes to have the Act amended in the direction of providing simpler machinery for the renewal of expired patents.


Andrew B. Ingram: Yes.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Well, that question came up in the Committee on Private Bills and also in the House, and the expression of the House indicated clearly its desire to hold that power in its own hands and not delegate it to anybody else. The most frequent applications are in cases where the parties allowed the time to elapse within which they had the right to extend the life of their patent by paying the additional fees, and then apply to parliament to have that extension of life which the department is debarred from granting them through their own fault. I have constant application for such extensions but am absolutely powerless. If the government were to undertake to grant an extension by Order in Council, once the delay for granting it has expired, that would be of no effect, because it is distinctly contrary to the law. The parties have to apply to this House to pass a private Bill for that purpose, and the question which the hon. gentleman has put has frequently been discussed both in the Private Bills Committee and the House. Two years ago the question came up of amending the Act in the direction suggested. What I proposed was that after a patent had expired without any commercial use having been made of it, and the inventor subsequently found a chance of utilizing his invention, we should give to the Exchequer Court the power to reinstate such a patent under certain conditions. A Bill to that effect was submitted to a special committee and the committee failed to report on it, and I believe did so designedly. Under the circumstances, I felt that this House did not desire to delegate its power in this respect to anv other body. On several other occasions also, both in the Private Bills Committee and in the House, it has been made clear that parliament does not wish to divest itself of this power.


Mr. BENNETT.: In the event of a party applying for a patent and the examiner refusing to grant his request on the ground that it clashed with an already patented article, is there any appeal from his decision ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Yes, to the minister.


William Humphrey Bennett: Have any such appeals been made ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I do not remember any particular one, but there have been two or three since I have been in office.


William Humphrey Bennett: When were these two or three made ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I cannot give the dates. I think there was one last year, but am speaking only from memory.
ilr. BENNETT. I presume that in such cases both parties-those making the application and those opposing it-are represented by counsel.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Yes.


William Humphrey Bennett: Were the counsel members of the House ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I do not remember, but I do not think so.
I am certain that the counsel were not members.


William Humphrey Bennett: Were the parties who appeared before the Minister to argue the cases members of this House ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: No.


William Humphrey Bennett: Does the hon. gentleman recollect any cases which, if not dealt with by himself, were dealt with by an officer of the department who afterwards reported to him, and in which members of this House did appear on behalf of the parties interested.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I remember no such case. The usual course is for the deputy minister, who is the assistant commissioner of patents, to go into the details and prepare a memo, for

me. Then when the ease finally comes before me, I take that memo, and hear the case. What occurs before the deputy minister I am not aware of in all cases.


Andrew B. Ingram: Are not all those cases, cases which have been legislated upon since by the House of Commons or Senate ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I do not think so. I do not carry in my mind the exact cases. There were three or four, but I could not mention one of them.


Andrew B. Ingram: Has it never been suggested to the hon. gentleman that a period of eighteen years was sufficiently long and that there should be no extension after that time ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: There is no extension after that time. The only proposal was to give power to increase the time.


Andrew B. Ingram: Has there been no appli-catron to have that part of the Act wiped out which allows the parties, after twelve years have elapsed, to have the term extended ?


OF AGRICULTURE.
[Stage Direction]
The MINISTER I do not think so.
Andrew B. Ingram: Once the term elapses there is no power to grant an extension ?
The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE, lne only power is the one we have now, of granting an extension by special Act of parliament. There has never been any proposal to legislate that that should not be r.011.1;: JVKl if 'vc did so legislate parliament could the next day legislate to do it.


Andrew B. Ingram: There are many cases where a patent lapses, and some parties may have acquired certain rights after the lapse of a patent. Is it not sometimes possible for the parties who have acquired those rights to suffer an injustice ?
know are doing their duty. But I think the law so far as I can see should be amended so as to be assimilated as much as possible to what I consider the most perfect patent law in existence, and that is the law of the United States. In the matter of examinations, for instance, the safe-guards which are given by their statutes to patents are much better than the safe-guards which are given patents by our laws. I think that the manner and mode of examination here should be improved, and the number of examiners should be increased if possible. 'I suggest to the hon. gentleman that it would be expedient now, not only to amend our patent law, but probably to make a consolidation of it, and change it so as to make it resemble as much as possible the law of the United States. If this were done not only would our patents in the United States have greater authority, but our counsel and courts who are engaged in patent cases could get more assistance, more knowledge, from the decisions of American courts than we are able to get now. Of course the United States are noted for the great number of inventions which come out every day. The American people have a genius for invention, the patent office in Washington is flooded with patents every day. Their patent officers have to pass upon numberless patents, and of course their experience is greater than tlie experience of our men here. Their courts also have to pronounce upon more patent cases than our courts, and tlie experience derived by their courts and counsel would be of great advantage to us if our law resembled the law of the United States more than it does. In my opinion the patent law of the United States is superior to the patent law of England; and if our law could be made more like the law of the United States it would be to the advantage of patentees, and to the advantage of the courts and the profession in general in Canada.
The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE -they can come before parliament with t private Bill, and parliament can protec them if it sees fit. As I pointed out to tin hon. gentleman a few minutes ago, the parliament of Canada has retained that powei m its own hands, and not delegated it t( anybody else. That is the law to-day, and do not think there is any disposition tc change it.


Mr. CASGRAIN.: I desire to say to tin hon. Minister of Agriculture that in the course of my experience I have become convinced that our American cousins have not a very good opinion of our patem office as it is now constituted. i do noi for a moment wish to throw any blame or the officers who are there now, and who 1 Hon. Mr. FISHER.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: 1 am a little surprised to hear the hon. gentleman say that our law is so inferior to that of the United States. As a matter of fact it is largely similar. I am not a lawyer myself, but I have to discuss these questions a good deal with patent solicitors, and have compared the American patent law with our own pretty closely. I would not like to acknowledge that our law is so far inferior to their law. I do not think that is the opinion of most patent solicitors who apply to my department. When our law was amended some years ago it was largely modelled on the law of the United States. The system of patent examination of Canada is much the same as that of the United States, not at all the same as it is in England where a totally different principle obtains.

So far as tlie examination itself is concerned, I may say we have had quite a number of instances within the last few years where patents have been issued in the United States to patentees, and when applications came before us here our examiners have found that the patents had been anticipated, and that the issuance of those patents in the United States was really a mistake, and they were not issued here because they were not novel, and because the examiners here had really found anticipation of the patent which examiners in the United States had failed to find. At the time the patent was issued in the United States there was anticipation, the same anticipation of that patent which was found here by our examiners. I may say, however, frankly, that we have not got as large a force of examiners in Canada, in proportion, as they have in the United States. I have been adding to that force, I am glad to say the House has been generous, and I think wise, in allowing me to add to that force, and we have been trying very hard to catch up with the arrears of patent applications which I found when 1 came into the office. During the last few years there have been a great many more patents issued than previously. I think this last year there were 5,000 patents issued, and when I first came into the office there were but little more than 3,000. We have added fully 50 per cent to the number of patents issued during that period. 1 may say that during this last calendar year we have issued about 40 or 50 per cent of the patents for which there were applications coming before the office. But unfortunately at the beginning of the year there was a considerable number of patents in arrears, and we have not been able to obliterate that arrearage.
1 am adding constantly to the staff of examiners. But when a young man comes in at first as patent examiner it takes him nearly six months before he can become effective, and sometimes longer. Generally 1 find that the first six months after a young man enters upon the work of patent examiner, he does not render much aid in deciding upon patents, although it prepares him to take his place after that time, and to aid the office effectively. The consequence is that the increase of the effective force of the office lias been slow. Patent examining is a profession by itself. You can hardly expect any man outside the office, unless he is a thoroughly equipped attorney for patents, or a patent solicitor, to do the work of an examiner. It takes six months and sometimes eight or nine, before a young man coming in is able to do much effective office work. I am glad to say that nearly all the young men who have * been brought into the office have proved effective, and in the course of a little time have aided very much. I think
1 shall have to add still more to the effective force, because we have not yet caught up with the arrears, although we have come much nearer to it than we were a few years ago. I have hopes of being able gradually to obliterate the arrears and to accomplish that end without having to add much to the staff, because, after UaviiTg obliterated the arrears, I would not like to dismiss any of the men, as I think that would be hardly fair and hardly wise. I may add further that in choosing patent examiners, I take those who are university graduates, who have had a thorough training in some scientific course, either chemistry, or mechanics, or engineering, or electricity. In that way I have secured an excellent class of men who are eminently suited for the work, and as they gain a little experience and more practice, the work of the office will be very much better done than it ever was before. I may add in this connection that at a meeting held by the Manufacturers' Association in Toronto a few months ago where the patent office was discussed, some suggestions were thrown out for improvements, suggestions which I was glad to receive, and some very complimentary words were used in regard to improvement in the efficiency of the examining force.


Mr. ROBINSON (Elgin).: I would like to ask the hon. minister if it is necessary for a patentee to produce a model of his patent?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: No, it has not been necessary for about twelve years.


James Clancy: The hon. minister said that he had increased the staff. If the hon. gentleman will turn to D-2 of the Auditor General's Report he will find that $4,821.48 was paid as follows :-
Classifying all Canadian patents and comparing drawings of same for classification and for exchange with the United States in return for their patents, to be paid notwithstanding anything in the Civil Service Act, $4,821.48.
Will the hon. gentleman tell the committee how many are employed in the department, the salary of each, the number of new men the hon. gentleman brought in as experts, as I think, lie has told the House in the past, several young men were brought in for technical work, and the number of patents exchanged with the United States ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I think part of that work comes in under another item farther on. I am perfectly willing to give the hon. gentleman the information and only hope he will not ask me to repeat it when we come to the other item, No. 47, for classifying all Canadian patents, preparing drawings and so on.


James Clancy: The hon. gentleman will see that there are two items. There is a sum put under item 87, but here he has a service for the ' Patent Record ' in the estimates amounting to $12,000, and there is an expenditure under the same heading in the Auditor General's Report of $4,821.48.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: That is out of the vote of $5,000 which is down below in item 87.


James Clancy: I have reference to the expenditure of $4,821.48.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: That comes out of vote No. 87, which we will get to in a few minutes, and which amounts to $5,000. It does not come out of the vote for the ' Patent Record ' at all.


James Clancy: Then why does it appear here ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: We are now discussing item No. 80, being the vote for the ' Patent Record.' Of course, I can give the hon. gentleman all the information, but it will come more appropriately under item 87, which is a special vote of which that $4,821.48 is the detail.
Collection and compilation of criminal statisics (R.S.C., chap. 60), $1,800.


James Clancy: Has the vote been exhausted which was given last year ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Yes, this vote is exhausted every year. It is the vote which covers the payment to a lot of local officers all over the Dominion for giving us criminal statistics. You will find it detailed in the Auditor General's Report. The money is paid in small sums to secretary-treasurers and officers of courts and people like that all over the country.


James Clancy: How many are there of these ? I know no more dangerous thing than a service which stands still. It seems to be seized with dry rot. It is incredible that an efficient service should go on from year to year with the same sum of money toeing voted for it. I have no conception whatever that an important service would pass this House year after year, the same vote being given and that it should go on without the public or this House having any definite knowledge of it. Perhaps the hon. gentleman will tell us how many officers there are in receipt of pay for the information contained in the report, how much each of them is receiving, and who directs that work in his department, or whether the hon. gentleman gives it any personal supervision or not.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: If the hon. gentleman (Mr. Clancy) will look up page D-10, Auditor General's Report, he will see the commencement of the list. The list goes over pages 11 and 12 and nearlv half way down page 13. I will not under-


Hon. Mr. FISHER.: take to read all these names or to count them. Opposite each name is the amount which is paid. This work has been done for years under the supervision of the statistician, Mr. George Johnson, and has been carried out In the same way. I have not the details as to the exact number of cents paid to each individual, but the same principle has been carried out and if a change is to be made it will have to be made by practically wiping out the collection of these criminal statistics. I confess that I have not myself gone into the value of these criminal statistics. I found the system in vogue when I came into office and I was Informed that it was useful to statisticians, lawyers and others who are particularly interested in criminals and I left it in their hands.
Statistical Year-book, $4,000.


William Humphrey Bennett: Would the hon. gentleman Inform us what the Statistical Yearbook cost in 1896 ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I think it was about $4,000 in 1896.


Andrew B. Ingram: Have you increased the number in circulation ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Yes.
Mr. TAY'LOR. I notice that the two items for the services that Mr. Geo. Johnson, the statistician, has charge of, that is the item for the collection of criminal statistics, and the item for the publication of the Yearbook are the same now as they were in 1895 and 1896. This work certainly has increased in proportion to all the other services rendered by the hon. gentleman's department, but notwithstanding this fact, there is an increase in every other branch of from 50 to 100 per cent, while the votes for these services are not increased.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: When I came into office in 1896 I found that expenditure. I found also that I was able by reducing the volume of the Statistical Year-book I was able to reduce the expenditure and if the hon. gentleman will go to the years 1898-1899, 1899-1900, he will find that we only spent $3,000.


George Taylor: 


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: $3,000 in 1899-1900. Last year it was $4,000, and it is $4,000 again this year.


James Clancy: Will the hon. gentleman tell us how the distribution is made ? I understand that four copies are given to each member of this House, so many copies go to the Senate and certain institutions of learning, ministers of the gospel, and so on. Will the hon. gentleman tell how the distribution is made and in what proportion besides the distribution to members of this

House as well as tlie whole number published ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Mr. Johnson has a list of institutions and people who seem to be interested in the statistics comprised in this book. That list is occasionally gone over and occasionally added to. The increased number has been owing to the fact that recently, by request of this House, we have established a regular distribution to members of the House and the Senate. This book is not distributed in the same way as printed matter printed by order of this House. It is paid for by the vote of my department. Ordinary reports which are distributed wholesale to" the members of the House of Commons are paid for by the House of Commons and are under the control of the House of Commons Printing Committee. This Year-book is not, but notwithstanding that we are asking in this vote a sum of money to print it and to distribute a certain number to every member of the House of Commons and every senator. The others are distributed to public libraries, mechanics' institutes, to some teachers, and to those who have asked for it. The list is in Mr. Johnson's hand, but I have no doubt I could get it. It would be very voluminous.


James Clancy: How many copies are issued 1


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Last year 5,000 English and 1,200 French. Four copies are sent to each member and senator, making about 1,200 copies, and the rest are distributed generally.


James Clancy: In what proportion ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I cannot say.


James Clancy: Then the item had better stand.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: There is only one copy sent to any particular body. Fifty copies are sent to the High Commissioner in London, and a considerable number are distributed on personal application.


James Clancy: My reason for asking is that some persons, for unaccountable reasons, seem to be in possession of the Yearbook, while others seem unable to get it. There should be some uniform distribution and some system adopted. I would ask the item to stand.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I will certainly consent to that, but I may say that I do not think that any application for the Year-book has been refused so long as there was a book available in the department. There has been no picking and choosing. There has been considerable demand for back numbers, but the English edition for 1893, 1891, 1895 and 1890 is exhausted. There is now a greater demand for the French edition than in former years, but there are no copies of the French edition left for 1891, 1S93, 1891 and 1895. I repeat that no applicant has been refused so long as there was a copy of the book left.


James Clancy: My object is to arrive at some uniform system of distribution, and with that object in view I want the information.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Would it suit if I got a report from the statistician and sent it to the hon. gentleman ?


James Clancy: The minister is very anxious to get his estimates through and he should have all reasonable information ready to give us in the House.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Very well, I will let it stand.


Mr. WILSON.: The Year-book is a very valuable document and it would be more valuable still and much more appreciated if it could be published earlier in the year. To get the information it contains, requires research in many other public documents, and when we get that information in the Year-book it is so old that it is comparatively valueless.
The MINISTER OF AGRICLLT'URE. The hon. gentleman himself gives the reason for the Year-book not being published earlier. The gentlemen who compile the Year-book have to go through the blue-books, which they cannot obtain until they are compared and finished, although as a matter of fact they get them before they are published. The blue-books of the last fiscal year are not generally ready to be placed in the hands of the statistician until the beginning of the year that follows. Last year the book was out very considerably earlier than it ever had been before, and the same will be true of this year.


Hon. Mr. ROSS (Victoria).: I am not going to raise a question about the figures, but I think our Year-book should be bound so that it may compare favourably with the year-books of the other colonies. The Yearbook of New Zealand and the Australian colonies is well bound and presents a very pleasing appearance. I do not think that any member of this House will ever go through all the weary details of figures that we find in our Year-book. The practice in other countries is to give a chapter on important subjects such as butter and cheesemaking, wool products, mining interests, agricultural interests, the fishing industry, and interesting information about the history and habits and progress of the natives. If some able writers in Canada were to treat on these different subjects in our Yearbook, it would be of more value to ourselves and of far greater value when it is distri-

buted abroad. I throw out these suggestions in the hope that the minister may be able to adopt them.


Mr. HOLMES.: My objection to this vote is that the amount is too small. Last year the discussion took the same trend, and 1 urged that the item should be increased, because I think the Year-book is so valuable that the more we can distribute it the better for the country. I would be glad if the minister could see his way to increase the vote in future years.


James Clancy: 1 would expect an objection to this from the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Hon. Sir Richard Cartwright). He worried this book for many years in this House on the ground that it was unreliable and of no value. If the hon. gentleman is not too modest now, I expect that he will object to further expenditure on the Yearbook; unless indeed he has changed his mind with regard to this, as he has with regard to everything else.


The MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE.: The hon. gentleman is slightly mistaken. I have not changed my mind in the slightest degree, as he will possibly find out before the session is over. With respect to the Year-book, I think there has been considerable improvement in it since it came under the management of my hon. friend (Mr. Fisher).


William Findlay Maclean: Then the speech of last night is to have no effect.


The MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE.: Your speech.


William Findlay Maclean: Oh, no.


The MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE.: I had not the pleasure of hearing it, but I understand it did great credit to my hon. friend's acquaintance with Scripture.


William Findlay Maclean: Hear, hear.
Item allowed to stand.
General statistics, $3,200.


Andrew B. Ingram: What is this for ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: This has appeared in the estimates for many years. It is to pay temporary clerks engaged on statistical work ; but these clerks are about as permanent as any clerks in the department. Mr. Johnson finds work for them to do all the time.


James Clancy: Who is Mr. Washington, whose name appears in the Auditor General's Report as having received $722.31 for 124 days' services and for railway fares and other expenses ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Mr. Washington is a gentleman who was employed to investigate certain statistics in regard to the trend of land values last year and the year before.


William Ross: 


James Clancy: What was the nature of the service ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: The service was to investigate and find out the trend of land values in the country parts of Canada.


James Clancy: Does the hon. gentleman mean to say that any person engaged for so short a time could give any definite or even approximate idea of land values ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Oh, yes.


James Clancy: Well, he must be a very clever gentleman. It is utterly imposible, as the hon. gentleman knows, for any person to obtain any fair notion of land values in the country in so limited a period. If we are to have statistical information of this kind, it ought to be reliable. I am not complaining of the item, but one can see at a glance that the information obtained under such circumstances must be so very limited as to be of no great value. Has he made a report ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Oh, yes. While I appreciate what the hon. gentleman says that a complete investigation of the trend of land values would be a very valuable affair, and would extend over a long period, what was done was this. Certain counties in the older provinces were taken, which were supposed to be fairly representative, and the registry offices of those counties'were examined to show the sales of land at different periods, and in that way a fair criterion was obtained of what was generally the case throughout the country.


James Clancy: The hon. gentleman knows that it is not a new thing in this House to cite the increase or decrease of land values as showing the failure or the success of the existing government. I suppose the hon. gentleman has in his possession the report of Mr. Washington, showing the number of registry offices examined throughout Canada.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Yes, and I shall be very glad to lay the report on the Table if I have not already done so. I am rather under the impression that I laid it on the Table last session.


Mr. SPROULE.: I thought a good deal of this information was got from the Ontario Bureau of Industries.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: The information which we got was not obtained there.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I know that when it was proposed to supply these general statistics, that was one of the sources from which they were expected to be obtained, and the reason was that the work could be done cheaply.


FEBKUARY 25. 1902
Andrew B. Ingram: Is this Mr. Washington provided with any transportation by the department ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: His expenses were paid when he travelled.


Andrew B. Ingram: I see that his railway fares amounted to $54.67. It would be impossible for a man to examine the registry offices of Ontario for that amount. He must have relied upon correspondence.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: The hon. gentleman misunderstands me. There were only some registry offices selected.


Andrew B. Ingram: But I doubt whether he could do that in the province of Ontario alone at so small an expense. Were these inquiries confined to one province ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: No, I think he went to three counties in Ontario, to one or two in Quebec, and to one or two in the maritime provinces. I know he was in Prince Edward Island, and I think he examined a county in Nova Scotia.


Andrew B. Ingram: Could the hon. minister state the counties he examined ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I could not off-hand. The report contains that information.


Andrew B. Ingram: Because I think it would be unfair to the counties which were not visited. I know that some counties flatter themselves as being the garden of Ontario. If only three were picked out, it would not be a very good way of obtaining reliable information.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Carleton county, I know, was one.


Uriah Wilson: Who selected the counties which he was to visit and report upon ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I did myself.


Andrew B. Ingram: At whose recommendation was this gentleman engaged ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I do not know that he was recommended by anybody. I think I proposed the idea myself. '


Andrew B. Ingram: Who is this Mr. Washington ? Is he a relative of the late George Washington ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I cannot say. I never looked into his genealogy.


George Taylor: Has he been permanently appointed ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: No, only for particular work.


George Taylor: Where did he reside before he came to Ottawa ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I could not say.


George Taylor: Did he simply come to Ottawa and ask for the position and obtain it without showing any qualification ? Was he recommended by Mr. Johnson the statistician ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I do not think so.


William Humphrey Bennett: The hon. minister says that the inspiration to appoint such an officer came from himself. As it was he who inspired the idea, he must have known who this gentleman was and where he came from. Did he come from the hon. gentleman's own riding ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: No, he did not. I never knew the gentleman until I met him here at Ottawa and do not know where he came from.


William Humphrey Bennett: Are we to understand that he was a casual visitor who dropped in on the minister just as the inspiration came to him, just as the minister conceived the idea of appointing such an official, and having dropped on the minister at the phsycological moment, got the appointment?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Mr. Washington is a gentleman who has been engaged for years in statistical investigation. When I first met him we had a discussion on statistical work. I believe he was at one time in the press gallery, but I did not inquire particularly into his antecedents.


William Humphrey Bennett: Was he on the .Montreal ' Herald ' ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I do not think he ever was connected with the Montreal ' Herald,' and I cannot remember who introduced him to me, but I have known him a good many years and have frequently discussed statistical work with him.


Mr. COCHRANE.: When was he in the press gallery ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I do not know. Some years ago.


James Clancy: The hon. gentleman seems rather hazy about this appointment of this mythical gentleman who bears a very distinguished name. He does not know who introduced him or how he came to know him. All he remembers is that Mr. Washington was engaged in statistical work. Where was he engaged in such work and how ? Was it under Mr. Johnson ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: No.


James Clancy: Did Mr. Johnson recommend his appointment ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I do not think he did.


James Clancy: Well, this man is putting into the statistical Year-book information utterly worthless ns the hon. gentleman must admit himself, and there cannot fail to be a lurking suspicion in the House that Mr. Washington, although he may be a very estimable gentleman, was, in a party sense, a lame duck who had to be taken care of.
I might venture to guess that Mr. Washington will disclose in his report a very extraordinary advance in land values since the hon. gentleman came into power.


The MINISTER OP AGRICULTURE.: Naturally.


James Clancy: Can the hon. gentleman give any other reason for the appointment ?


Mr. BLAIN.: His appointment was about the time of the general elections.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Mr. Washington began the work about three years ago. It was rather intermittent.


William Humphrey Bennett: Has the hon. minister ever read any of Mr. Washington's tracts on free trade ? I am informed that he was a gentleman of a literary turn of mind and that he published in the days of old tracts on free trade. Did the hon. gentleman ever read them ?


The MINISTER OP AGRICULTURE.: I never did. Perhaps I did not need the enlightenment.


Mr. GANONG.: Will the hon. minister tell his nationality ? This government has been appointing United States citizens to office and the name is very suggestive of that citizenship.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: 1 should say he is an Englishman from what I have seen of him.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The information given iu this statistical record must of necessity be very unreliable. Every one knows that the differences in value among different counties in Ontario are so great that you could never get a fair approximate estimate by taking only three centres. In some counties around Toronto land is worth $100 per acre, and in other counties it is worth only from $10 to $40 per acre. You can scarcely find two counties in which the values are alike. In some they are very high and in others very low, and to strike an average from three counties, and give that as an average of the whole, is absurd.
Item allowed to stand.
A
Aid to agricultural societies, $7,000.


James Clancy: That is not a large sum. What is the nature of the service ? It is a service which I think ought to be increased.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: This money is for the purpose of aiding agricultural societies in the North-west Territories. Ordinarily these societies are
supported by the provincial government, but as the North-west Territory has no provincial government, this government many years ago stepped iu and granted this money. It is paid through the agency of the territorial government, to the different societies according to their membership. The amount is distributed among 23 societies.


James Clancy: Is there any increase in the number of agricultural societies ?
The SI1NISTER OF AGRICULTURE. The local authorities there have been rather hoping to decrease the number of agricultural societies by getting two or three to join together and so make a stronger organization. The same amount of money has been paid out to societies actually ful-tiiiug certain conditions required, mainly with regard to membership.


James Clancy: The hon. minister knows better than I can explain to him that that country is growing rapidly and that agriculture is its chief interest. This item, it seems to me, is entirely inadequate for the important service for which it is intended. It is a mere beggarly sum for such a service. If the people there prefer to consolidate their societies, the result, no doubt, will be commendable as malciug the organizations much stronger. But that is no reason for voting so small a sum for this most important work. I, for one, would be prepared to support the hon. minister in vastly increasing it.


Uriah Wilson: Would the hon. minister tell us in what proportions this money is distributed ? Some societies seem to get much more than others.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: The money is distributed in proportion to the membership of the several societies.


Uriah Wilson: Are these societies on a basis of paid membership ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: They must have a certain paid membership-I think the number is fifty-before they can be accepted as efficient societies under this vote.


Mr. LANCASTER.: How does the hon. minister get the information on which the payments to societies are based ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: That detail is managed by the Agriculture Department of the Territories. The societies must send to that department a statement of their membership before they can receive any money.
Experimental farms, $80,000.


James Clancy: I would ask the hon. minister to allow that item to stand. It is a very large item and involves a great deal.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: FEBRUARY 2& 1902


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Very well.


Mr. HUGHES (Victoria).: Before we pass rrom that item, I would like to say to the Minister of Agriculture that, when it comes up for further consideration, I intend to direct attention to the necessity of making experiments in the North-west Territories in the growing of beet root for sugar purposes.
Item allowed to stand.
Printing and distributing of reports and bulletins of farms, $4,000.


James Clancy: How many of these reports are sent out, and what is the number printed 7


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: This is a special vote, which is practically added to the Experimental Farm vote so as to enable the farms to put out a large number of bulletins for the information of farmers from time to time.


Andrew B. Ingram: I understand that if names are supplied by hon. members to the department the parties whose names are thus given will be supplied with bulletins.
The MINISTER OB' AGRICULTURE. There is a list at the Central Experimental Farm of something like 50,000 names of persons, to all of whom these bulletins are sent. That list we try to keep up to date as much as possible. Anybody who asks, can have his name put on that list. Members of the House frequently send In names.


George Taylor: I notice that, in the estimates of 1895-0, this item of printing of bulletins and distribution of seed grain's, trees and shrubs amounts to only $2,000. The hon. minister now asks for $4,000. How does this increase come about ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: 1 am not aware of any increase In this item, and am surprised to hear what the hon. gentleman (Mr. Taylor) says. I cannot but think that he is in error. Of course, I have not the estimates of 1895-6 before me.


George Taylor: I have them here and will send them to the hon. minister.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: 1 confess I cannot explain the point. I am pretty certain that when I came into office this item was $4,000. The estimates the hon. gentleman has sent me are those of 1895-6, and the increase may have been made the year I came into office.


Mr. CLARKE.: Where is the printing done ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: At the Printing Bureau-all of it.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: There was an arrangement some years ago under which every
member of a farmers' institute received these bulletins. Is that continued 7


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: That arrangement never existed.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I feel sure it did, for I have attended meetings at which the speakers sent out by the government urged those present to join farmers institutes, giving this as an inducement.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Sproule) is thinking of the Ontario Department of Agriculture.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: No, of both, I know that on several occasions a number joined the institute for this very reason. They were told that they would receive not only the bulletins of the Experimental Farm at Guelph, but those of the Dominion Experimental Farms as well.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I dare say the hon. gentleman is quite correct as to what was said. I know that Ontario speakers frequently talked in that way; and, whenever lists of names -were sent in those names were added to the list at the Experimental Farm. But, frequently, large numbers of the names sent in were already on our list. Neither since my time nor before, has it been the rule to put the names of members of farmers' Institutes or any local societies, ipso facto, on our list. It has been found, as a general rule, that these names are already on our list. But if any of these members ask to be put on our list they are put on individually.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Our whole membership list was sent in.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: That list would be compared with the list at the farm, and any names not found there would be added.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I want to know what other distribution is made of the farm report. This only refers to the bulletins, as I understand, in connection with the Experimental Farm. But there is an agricultural report and an Agricultural Committee report.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: The farm has nothing to do with these, the House deals with them. This vote is simply for the printing of the bulletins, and for the cost of distribution of the bulletins and and also of the report. But this does not pay for the printing of the report. The report that is laid on the Table is printed by order of the House. This $4,000 pays for sending out about 50,000 copies. When you come to mail 50,000 copies of a pamphlet, or a volume as thick as this, it costs something.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Why is that not done at the Bureau ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: The farm has the list, and the work has always been done there.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Could not the work be done more expeditiously at the Bureau ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I do not think so. It is better done under the supervision of the farm officers. They are the people who have to make up the lists, and to correct them, and if the distribution was done at the Bureau they would have to be constantly sending corrections to the Bureau. It would be a very awkward arrangement.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Am I correct in understanding that this only applies to the bulletin ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: It applies to the printing of the bulletin, also to the distribution and mailing of the same.


George Taylor: What about seed grain and shrubs ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: That is paid for out of the $80,000.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Probably the minister could inform us as to the mode of sending these out from the farm. How are these reports sent out from the farm for which an expenditure of $4,000 is asked here ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: In the first place the great bulk of this money is spent for printing the bulletin, and the rest of it is spent to pay people for mailing it, men who mail not only the bulletin, but the report. There are 50,000 odd copies of the report and 50,000 odd copies of each bulletin sent out. I do not mean to say that every bulletin is sent out to that number, but the ordinary bulletins which apply to farmers generally are sent out to the number of over 50,000. They have a printed list like that of a newspaper, and each name is cut off the list and put on by a machine which is used in the office of the farm.


Edward Frederick Clarke: From information I have obtained I am rather strengthened in the opinion that if these documents were sent to the Bureau with the lists, the work could be done there much more expeditiously and more economically. If the hon. gentleman will inquire into the method of large newspaper offices sending out their papers, he u ill find that persons employed in that work become expert.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: It is not likely anybody could be more expert than the men at the farm who are doing this work. They send out every vear from 300,000 to 400,000 copies. They are


Sydney Arthur Fisher: practically engaged in that work the year round, and they are as likely to be expert as anybody the hon. gentleman could find. They employ the same system as is employed in newspaper offices, although of course they do not send out as many copies as large city newspapers.


Edward Frederick Clarke: How many men are employed at this work ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Two.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: How is this list of the report kept up from year to year ? Is it revised periodically ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: It is revised not only from year to year, but constantly. A notice is sent to every postmaster in the country asking him to notify the farm when any of these reports or bulletins fail to reach the person to whom they are addressed, that is to say, if they are not called for or refused. It is almost unknown that any are refused, but people who die or remove from place to place fail to call for their reports, and postmasters are requested by special notice to inform the Bureau whenever that occurs, and then the name is stricken off the list. In addition, we constantly get reminders from people about their reports, and correspondents of the farm frequently ask us to replace some names by others. The result is that changes of address are constantly taking place. We are always glad to receive such information from the members of parliament or others.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Does this item cover the cost of printing the departmental report ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: It has nothing to do with it.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: A system was adopted a few years ago which I thought was a very good one in connection with the distribution of these reports and bulletins. A copy of the list was sent to each member of the House, and he was asked to go over it and revise it according to his knowledge of the persons on the list. In looking over the list in my riding I found a good many changes had to be made. I think that with all the means the minister is taking to keep the list correct, he will still find that many of these reports are sent to people who are dead or have left the country. It ought to be revised in some other way from time to time.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: We are doing that constantly, but unfortunately a good many members of parliament do not take the trouble to help us.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Has the departmental report been printed at the Bureau this year ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Yes, it always has been.

Classifying all Canadian patents, and preparing drawings of same for classification and exchanged with the United States in return for their patents, to be paid notwithstanding anything in the Civil Service Act, $5,000.


James Clancy: Tlie lion, gentleman promised to give us some information as to the number of clerks employed, the salaries paid, the number of exchanges made with the United States, and so on. I would like him to explain a number of items here, and first 1 will ask his attention to the item of $4,821.48 on page D-2 of the Auditor General's Report, and to another item of $9,900 on page D-10.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: What is the other item ?


James Clancy: The first is D-2 and the second D-10.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: They are the same item. The one at D-10 contains the details of the one at D-2.


James Clancy: Ah, but it is more ; one is $9,000 and the other is $4,000.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: One is $4,821.48. This is the only item in this vote, and the details of that are at page D-10, under the heading of ' Classification of Patents


James Clancy: The hon. gentleman will see that the principal cost, here, at D-10, is for lithographing and printing, while the other is paid under the head of ' Classification ' and amounts to $4,821.48.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: It is the same work. Classification requires lithographing and printing. The practise is this ; we had 60 odd thousand patents in the department which were not classified in any way. They were filed on shelf after shelf without classification. The result was that when an application came in for a patent, the patent examiner had to trust to his memory, or to his general knowledge, to find any patent which he thought might clash with that of the application. I found that at Washington there was a very good classification ; that is to say patents were divided into general classes and these again into several classes. I have not the technical knowledge to describe the method employed, but hon. gentlemen can quite understand how mechanical patents would be in one class, which would be divided again into a class containing the different classes of machinery, the chemical class, the electrical class and so on. In a report made by the examiners of that day, I was requested to make a classification of Canadian patents as being a necessary thing for the easy and proper investigation of every new application. I explained that item at the time I first asked for this vote, and I set the most experienced patent examiner, Mr. Caron, at that work. He has been at it ever since
and he has made progress to the extent, speaking from memory, of having completed about three-quarters of the work. In that connection we found it was necessary for two reasons to take photographs and have duplicate copies of the plans, or designs, or drawings of the patents which had been applied for and in that way we were obliged to take photographs of these old patents and these are to be put into folios in the classification. A great deal of this work has been work of a photographing or lithographing nature. In this connection I would say that at the same time we were doing this we were exchanging with the Washington authorities our classification for theirs. On the occasion of the visit of the deputy commissioner of patents, Mr. Scarth, an arrangement was made with the Washington people by which they were to send us copies of their classification and we were to send them copies of ours. The Washington classification is the one that is most needed by our patent examiners of all classifications because, in a great many instances, I think in about three-quarters of the instances, patents applied for here are also applied for in Washington, and when a man applies for a patent here it is more necessary for our examiners to find out whether it has been anticipated in Washington than to find out whether it has been anticipated in any other foreign country. We therefore arranged not only to take photographs for our own use here but also to send two copies to Washington in exchange for which we were to have copies of their classifications. I regret to say that recently the authorities of the Washington patent office have ceased to send their classification. They kept it up for a while, then they began to drop off little by little and quite lately they have told me that they cannot longer continue it as they have not a sufficient vote to enable them to make that expenditure. I was surprised at this, I was very much disappointed indeed, because it was a distinct, although an informal arrangement, made with them. They carried it out for two or three years and it has been of very great use to us but unfortunately they gradually dropped off. I inquired of the commissioner of patents there officially in regard to the matter and he has informed me that he was no longer able to continue the arrangement. Still, we go on with our own classification and I think it will take fully another year to finish all the arrears of patents which have never been classified before. There will always be a little of this work going on in the classification of the 5,000 or 6.000 patents which are issued every year. Of course, they are classified as they are issued. This is tlie reason why we have to pay out money for paper, photographing and so on.


James Clancy: The hon. gentleman has raised a very important question respecting foreigners who are seeking patents in Can-

ada. If I am rightly informed the life of a patent in Canada is the life of that patent in a foreign country, say the United States. For instance, if a patent expires in five years in the United States 1 understand that the life of that patent will not extend beyond that time in Canada. I am speaking now generally rather from hearsay than from any explicit information I have myself. If there be anything in what I have just said, the hon. gentleman will see, as he has seen long ago, no doubt, the importance of being furnished by the United States with all the information that will enable the office in Canada to place that limit that X understand is already placed on an American patent; namely, that when it expires in the country where it originated, it expires in Canada. Perhaps the hon. gentleman will state whether I am correct in the information I have given in regard to it.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: It is true that a patent expires in Canada when it expires in a foreign country ipso facto. As a rule we have patents here issued almost simultaneously with those of the United States. A patent cannot be issued here one year, I think it is, after it is issued anywhere else.


Uriah Wilson: What regulation is there in the United States with reference to that ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I cannot give any information off-hand about the United States law, but I think it is about the same as ours. The actual time allowed may be a little different. As a matter of fact the life of a patent in the United States is seventeen years and in this country it is eighteen years. If you were to get a patent in the United States to-day it would expire 17 years from to-morrow, and if you were to get a patent in Canada today, it would expire 18 years from to-morrow, but if it expired in the United States at the end of 17 years, it would expire here also.


James Clancy: How does the office in Canada manage, since the American patent office has refused, or neglected, to furnish the classification, for the office in Canada must to a very great extent be in ignorance of the time at which a patent was taken out in the United States ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: The classification is not a record of patents, or anything of that kind. The classification is for the purpose of facilitating the search by the examiners of old patents so as to see whether a new application has been anticipated or has been already patented. We have the record of all the patents issued in the United States. It comes to us and it has always come to us. We have all the records of the United States patent office in our office, and therefore we have available the exact date of every patent issued in the United States Mr. CLANCY.
and consequently we know the date of its expiry by the laws, of the United States. But the classification is another thing, and it is a description of the patent or the pictures of the plans of the patent to enable the examiners when a new application comes in, to look up the classification of the United States as well as of Canada to see whether a certain invention has already been patented.


James Clancy: How many are employed in the classification ?
The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE, air.' Caron is the patent examiner, aud he gets $500 a year for the expert work required, in addition to his salary as clerk. When this work was undertaken he was practically the only specialist in the department able to discharge the duties which were far more important and intricate than the work of an examiner. His salary was then $1,400 and I gave him $000 extra, but he has been getting statutory increases since and I have reduced the $600 to $500. The other employees are Mr. Kil-gallin $700, Mr. Bourrett, $625, Mr. Brown $550, Mr. Rae $500, Mrs. Brunet $40u. Mr. Proulx $300, Mr. Foley $365 and Mr. Desjardins, who is also a clerk, gets an extra allowance of $50. This amounts to $4,115 and there is $600 spent on photographing paper, $75 in stationery, and $210 in sundry small items.


George Taylor: Is the 'Patent Record' printed in the Bureau ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Yes.


George Taylor: The Minister of Agriculture asks $12,000 for the ' Patent Record ' besides a new item of $5,000 that was not in the estimates in 1895-96. This makes a total expenditure of $17,000 for the ' Patent Record.' whereas the Conservative government did exactly the same service for $9, 250 according to the estimates of 1895-96. There we have an increase of $7,750 in this item.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: The hon. gentleman is mistaken. In the first place the classification has nothing to do with the ' Patent Record,' and in the second place the Conservative government did not classify the patents at all. That work was commenced In 1897.


George Taylor: And yoyi are asking $5,000 additional for that, and increasing the old vote by $2,000.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: That is because of the increase in the number of patents. When there are 5,000 patents, it takes more to print the book than when there were 3,000, and in addition to that the trade marks and designs are included in the ' Patent Record ' now, which was not the case in 1895-6. I was asked

by members of tbe House to include them, and I thought it right to do so, but it adds to the expense of issuing the volume.


James Clancy: Where is the lithographing done ?	"


The MINISTER OP AGRICULTURE.: In a room in the Langevin block.


James Clancy: Under the control of the department ?


The MINISTER OP AGRICULTURE.: You mean with regard to the classification ?


James Clancy: Yes.


The MINISTER OP AGRICULTURE.: Yes.
Fumigating stations, $3,000.


James Clancy: Although the amount of this item is small, it is still very important and the committee should have full information.


The MINISTER OP AGRICULTURE.: I am ready to give as full information as I can. The hon. gentleman is aware of the origin of this work. Some years ago parliament passed a law prohibiting the importation of any nursery stock from any country where the San Jose scale was known. This prohibition lasted for about two years without relaxation, and an amendment was then passed by which nursery stock was permitted to be imported at certain ports of entry designated by Order in Council on the condition that it should be carefully fumigated. This sum is for the carrying out of that law. Nursery stock is allowed by the Order in Council passed under that Act, to come in during a certain season of the year at St. John, N.B., St. Johns, P.Q., Niagara Palls and Windsor, Ont., Winnipeg, Man.,and Vancouver, B.C. At each of these ports there is a small building made as nearly air tight as possible and a man is employed there during certain months of the year who takes the stock from the customs, puts it in the air chamber, fumigates it with hydrocyanic acid and then sends it back to customs. This has been carried on for two seasons and has been found to work on the whole very satisfactorily. There have been many requests that tlie period for importation should be lengthened, but the Order in Council was drawn up on the advice of the experts of my department, and I believe that the time is sufficiently long for people who pay attention to their work to import what they find necessary. The relaxation of the original San Jose Act was due to the request of growers of trees and shrubs in this country to enable them to import certain varieties, in some instances which they could not get in this country. It was also due to their demand that they would be allowed to have some cheek, so to speak, on the growers of nursery stock in this country 12
who at that time were hardly able to meet the market demand.


James Clancy: The hon. gentleman will-see from his experience that good came of the necessity. It has been the means of largely increasing the growth of nursery stock in Canada. Whether or not that stock is entirely free fropi the San Jose scale is yet an open question. It has no doubt come to the notice of the hon. gentleman that there is a murmur throughout the country that either from imperfect examination at the fumigation station, or from the rapid spread of the insect in Canada, it is becoming more dangerous all the time, to such an extent that in some directions people are somewhat discouraged at the prospect. I fully approve of the measures that were taken with regard to nursery stock imported into Canada; but there is the greater question as to how we are to deal with the insect as it is now planted on Canadian soil. The hon. gentleman and the Ontario government made some efforts to stamp it out, either working together or working separately, I am not prepared to say ; and some orchards were cut down in the face of almost open rebellion against the conduct of the two governments. It seems, however, that the whole matter has come to a standstill. I am told, although I am not prepared to vouch for the correctness of the statement, that forest trees are becoming infected with the insect. I believe it was stated at one of the meetings of the Agricultural Committee last year, that that was not the case ; but I have made some inquiries since, and I am told that many forest trees have become infected with this insect. If that is true, it becomes a very serious matter, and I am sure nothing would be more welcome to the committee than to have some intimation from the hon. gentleman as to what his policy is for dealing with this very important matter in the future.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I am very glad to meet the hon. gentleman's wishes. First, I would like to say, not in connection but in amplification of'what he has said, that while the Ontario goverry ment has done something towards stamping out the scale in the province of Ontario, tliis government and my department have had nothing whatever to do with that part of the work, which has been entirely under the control of the provincial authorities and their officers. The work which we have done in my department lias been two fold [DOT] First, by means of the San Jose Scale Act, to prevent the importation of the scale into this country from abroad-that was the object of this vote ; and. secondly, by means of the officers of the Experimental Farm-through Mr. Saunders, the head of that establishment, who is himself a horticulturist, a botanist and an entomologist ; through Mr. Fletcher, who is the entom'-l-ogist and botanist of the farm, and through



Mr. Macoun, who Is the' horticulturist of the farm we have been spreading information amkmg the fruit-growers and tree-growers of the country in regard to the dangers of the San Jose scale and the best treatment for exterminating or checking it. That has been the work of my department. Now, I think I may safely say that there is hardly any San Jose scale, if any at all, in any part of the Dominion of Canada except in the province of Ontario. It is barely possible that there may be a little in the province of British Columbia, hut the people there say that it has been entirely stamped out, and I am disposed to believe them. We are not aware of a single instance in the province of Quebec or in the maritime provinces. In the province of Ontario the provincial authorities have passed laws and issued regulations which have been fairly effective. They have been trying to stamp out the disease in some instances by cutting down the trees and burning them, and in other instances by elaborate methods of fumigation. They have been checking it by the regulation that all nursery stock grown in the province of Ontario must be fumigated by hydrocyanic acid gas before being issued from the nursery. If the fumigation is properly conducted-and the report of the officers is that it is-it effectually kills any scale that may exist on nursery stock ; and I think I am safe in saying, what I have stated frequently-and I have been supported and corroborated by experts, that the San Jose scale is not being spread by nursery stock grown in the province of Ontario. I do not believe that the stock sent out from the province of Ontario can carry the scale after the treatment it universally receives before it is issued. The scale does spread most wonderfully by the ordinary means of spreading disease or insect life, and in days gone by it has spread soihewhat considerably in certain parts in the province of Ontario, but only in that province. I am happy to understand, from the reports of those who have been inspecting it of late, that the methods of fighting the scale have been very much improved, and that if the proprietors of orchards and forest trees and shrubs choose to carry out properly and effectively the instructions given to them by the entomologists and botanists, they can destroy it. Unfortunately, however, these gentlemen are human, like' the rest of us, and a great many do not attend to their work properly, while others do not attend to it at all. So that occasionally no doubt the scale will get on forest trees. If this kind of thing goes on, the scale will perhaps increase in certain parts ; but any one who chooses to carry out the instructions given by experts on the subject can stamp it out and keep his orchards and small fruits free of it.


Mr CLANCY.: Perhaps the hon. gentleman will remember that Professor Fletcher
Hon. Mr. FISHER
stated that there were two methods of meeting the difficulty. One was to use certain solutions on the trees, and the other was to fumigate with hydrocyanic acid gas. The latter method, however, was said to be so expensive although the really effectual method of destroying the insect that it would not be generally adopted. Therefore, the milder and less effective method was being pursued, and while it served as a sort of check, there was no assurance that it was stamping out the disease.	-


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: The treatment by hydrocyanic acid is very difficult in the case of large trees and very expensive. The cost and the trouble makes it almost prohibitory. That method is used in fumigating nursery stock and small bushes, which can be easily covered and effectively fumigated.


James Clancy: Where is the nursery stock fumigated ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: It is only fumigated in Ontario. There is none grown anywhere else where we are aware of any scale being in existence. That work is done by the nursery men at their own nurseries under the inspection of an officer of the Ontario government. The fumigation stations only deal with importations and have nothing to do with nursery stock grown in this country. As regards the methods of destroying the scale, the fumigation by hydrocyanic acid gas of large trees is a very difficult, expensive and troublesome operation, and, in ninety-nine cases out of a hundred would probably not be effective. But no doubt the hydrocyanic gas is absolute death to the scale wherever the scale is touched by it. The ordinary method of spraying petroleum or whale oil is much more easy and cheaper and can be applied by anybody. It is not as effective as fumigation but is none the less a very effective method of dealing with the scale. While in one treatment all the scales might not be destroyed, any one who would take the trouble to spray the trees several times will effectively destroy them.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.
After Recess.
Committee resumed at Eight o'clock.
Towards compiling historical data in regard to the Acadian families in Canada, $1,400.
Mr. HACIvETT. Might I ask how this work is proceeding ? There is no more interesting work, or one that could be more advantageous to Canada than ascertaining and compiling information with regard to the old Acadian families. We know that after the expulsion of the Acadians from Grand Pro, they were scattered all over the maritime provinces, and of their des-

cendents, many hardly knew who their ancestors were. I do not criticise the vote, but I would like to know when we may expect the report. The matter is in the hands of an able gentleman and one who will carry out the work faithfully.
The MINISTER' OF AGRICULTURE. The work has been going on steadily. The gentleman in charge of it, Mr. Gaudet, has spent a considerable time in the maritime provinces investigating and making notes. For some little time he has been in Ottawa compiling his notes and preparing the book. He has not yet placed in my hands any portion of the work, but I understand, from what he tells me, that the work has been progressing satisfactorily. I have no de-linite information to give the hon. gentleman (Mr. Hackett), but as Mr. Gaudet is in town, I could without doubt, learn from him anything that might be desired by hon. members. The work has not progressed quite so fast as I had expected. Mr. Gaudet informs me that there has been more work than he anticipated, that he has had more travelling to do, and more work of investigation, if I may call it so, though that is not the right word, than was originally expected. As his work proceeded he found new facts which led to further investigation. This item covers $1,200 for salary, at the rate of $100 per month, and an allowance of $200 per year for travelling expenses when moving about.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I think that it is desirable that we should have communication of the results of the labour of this gentleman as they advance. We had, in the province of Quebec, a gentleman who made a similar compilation in respect of the old French families, and, from time to time, he gave the public the results of his investigation. 1 do not know how long the work under this item has been going on, but I think it is most desirable that we should have part of the results as they are gathered. Has the hon. minister any objection to that 1


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: 1 have not the work in shape to communicate to the House, but I will see if it is not possble to have a volume put in form for publication as soon as possible. I quite agree that it is desirable that this should be done.


George Taylor: When did this item first appear in the estimates ? How long has the work been going on ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: 1 think the item now before uaMs the third pne. That is, the work has been going on during the current year and the last year.


James Clancy: Before we pass to the next item, I desire to ask a question with regard to the Glasgow Exhibition and the Pan-American Exposition at Buffalo. Have 12J
the votes for these exhibitions been exhausted, or will the House be asked later on to vote a further sum to clean up matters V


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: The amount voted for the Glasgow Exhibition, I believe, will cover the whole expenditure. The amount voted in the original item and in the supplementary item made a total of $66,000, if I remember well, and the commissioner has informed me that he expects to pay everything with this amount, though he will have little to spare if any. As to the Buffalo Exposition, $50,000 was voted for that service, and I expect to bring down an item in the supplementary estimates for the current year to cover some additional expenditure.


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER.: Will not this come up under the next item ?


James Clancy: No; but if the hon. minister wishes to put the item, I will discuss it later on.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: No, I am perfectly willing to give the hon. gentleman (Mr. Clancy) all the information I can now.


James Clancy: What I wish to point out is that the hon. minister's main estimates are rather misleading to the country. He pretends that there has been a reduction of $20,000 in the expenditure on this service of arts, agriculture and allow me-the estimates we are now disclose there is to be no further expenditure but


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: If the hon. gentleman (Mr. Clancy) will allow me-the estimates we are now discussing are for the next fiscal year, and there will be no item in the estimates for the next fiscal year for the Pan-American Exposition. That item will be in the sup-plementaries for the current year. Therefore, the statement as it appears in this item is correct.


Andrew B. Ingram: Then, there will be no item in these estimates under which we can discuss the Pan-American Exposition ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: It can be discussed on the item in the supplementary estimates for 1901-2.


Andrew B. Ingram: Would the hon. minister have any objection to stating what he did with the Canadian building at the PanAmerican ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: It was sold.


William Humphrey Bennett: Who exercised supervision over these expenditures at the Glasgow Fair ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Mr. W. D. Scott.

Mr. B1SNNETT. And who is Mr. James Brodie ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: He was appointed secretary to the Glasgow Exhibition. He is a gentleman from the city of Quebec. He has shown the most excellent capacity for work of this kind, so much so that I have appointed him secretary for the Wolverhampton Exhibition this season.


William Humphrey Bennett: At page D-14 of the Auditor General's Report appears a detailed statement of the expenditure in connection with the Glasgow Fair, and it seems to me that there are items there that ought not to be charged to the country. When this Mr. Brodie started off on an expedition of this kind, I should think he ought to have provided himself with his own travelling bag. We find here that he charged the country $12 for a travelling bag, kit bag, I presume he meant. Further on ' portfolio, $8.' The whole bill throughout seems to me to have been on a most extravagant style. Then I contend that these gentlemen were not treated fairly. For instance, Mr. Brodie had a living allowance of $6 per day.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: That included his pay.


William Humphrey Bennett: Then there were other gentlemen, for instance, Col. O'Brien was allowed $5 a day for living expenses. Coming down to Mr. Scott, I think Mr. Scott has great cause of complaint against the government. He, apparently, was not afforded sufficient means to enable him to keep up his position, because I find this item: ' Grub on boat, $7.78.' Perhaps the minister can explain that item. Surely, if we have men going abroad let us pay their expenses decently, and not limit them on an ocean trip to $7.78 for grub.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I suppose he had a big appetite.


William Humphrey Bennett: All through these accounts are such items as tips for porters, tips for waiters, and that sort of thing, stewards on the steamers. It seems to me when these gentlemen are allowed such liberal expenses as $5 and $6 per day, they can pay petty tips out of their own pockets. It may of course appear light to the minister that these men should travel in this style, but to the ordinary taxpayer it must be a_ matter of comment that, allowing them $5 and $G a day, they are still permitted to indulge in all these extravagances. No doubt as one of these gentlemen was to have charge of the expenditure everything went according to his taste. I hope that when Mr. Brodie goes to Wolverhampton, as the minister states he will, he will not ask the country to pay for one or two travelling bags for himself.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: 


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: The living allowance was paid to these gentlemen when they were in Glasgow. The usual incidental expenses of transportation to and from, they are paid for over and above; but when they were on board the boat or travelling, their living allowance was not allowed.


William Humphrey Bennett: How is it some of these only had their ship fare paid one way ? In the case of Col. O'Brien, ' Portland to Liverpool, $60'; in Mr. Brodie's case, 'Portland to Liverpool and return, $108.'


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: As a matter of fact that ticket is still good, because Mr. Brodie is still in England. I have no doubt if the ticket is not available or good when he does come back, he will get a refund.


William Humphrey Bennett: Why were not the others paid their fares both ways ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I think they were, those that came back.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The minister told us that the Canadian building at the PanAmerican was sold. What did he realize for it ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I cannot say off-hand, I have not the details of that vote here. It was a very small sum, a few hundred dollars. Practically it was given away. I will bring down the information.


Mr.   CLARICE@: Do you recollect to whom it was given away ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: It was not given away, but it was sold for so little you might call it given away.


Andrew B. Ingram: Have the Canadian government any idea of taking part in the St. Louis Exhibition, and could not this building be utilized for that purpose ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I am afraid the expense of transfer from one place to another would be a good deal more than the buildings are worth. When they were built the St. Louis Fair was not even started. I may mention here that I have been authorized by council to accept the invitation which has been extended by the authorities of St. Louis to Canada to participate in that exhibition, which will take place in 1903.


James Clancy: From the appearance of the Canadian building at Buffalo the country will not be astonished to learn that it did not bring much. I have no hesitation in saying, Mr. Chairman, that the Canadian building was a perfect disgrace to Canada.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Oh.


James Clancy: I appreciate the hon. gentleman's difficulty in securing a location.

He was much in the hands of the authorities there, and perhaps could not help himself. 1 am not disposed to find fault with that, although it is a regrettable matter that the building was not better located. But those who attended that exhibition could not help but be impressed with the poor appearance of the Canadian building. The smallest state in the union had a more presentable building than we had. I think there is nothing more damaging than to be beggarly, if that was the reason of it. When Canada was taking part in an exhibition of the continent of America, it should not have been behind any state in the union. If we could afford to expend any sum of money in the interest of Canada we should at least have expended enough to make a respectable appearance. Why, Sir, that building looked more like a barn than anything else. I could find horse stables in Canada that had a better appearance. It was not so bad inside, but outside the appearance of that building must have stamped Canadians as a set of people a generation behind the times. Now, I repudiate any idea of that kind. But I think it is not creditable to the management of the hon. gentleman that he permitted a building for Canadian exhibitors to be shown to the whole world as the most shabby building upon the whole ground. There were buildings not so large by some of the states, but they were all tastefully got up, they were presentable. While I think that great care should always be taken in the expenditure of public money, I know nothing of greater importance on such occasions than to present an appearance in keeping with our position. I think we have lost reputation in consequence of that building, if we did not redeem ourselves by other means, namely, by our splendid exhibits that came from all the provinces, and particularly from Ontario, and which gave all Canadians a very laudable pride. But the disgraceful part of it was the shabby appearance of the Canadian building.


Jabel Robinson: I take exception to the remarks of the hon. member for Both-well (Mr. Clancy). I think the building was a credit to Canada. I had the pleasure of attending the Pan-American twice. I went through that building, and I am satisfied that there was no building on the ground more creditable than that building was to Canada. The way it was fitted up inside and the display that was made in it, was something grand, and every man I-spoke to was proud to think that Canada made such a showing.


James Clancy: I confess I have not that practised eye for architectural beauty that my hon. friend has who lives on the back concessions. I will venture to say that there is not an intelligent man in Canada who will support his opinion. I call upon the
Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Tarte) an experienced judge.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I am not a judge.


James Clancy: No, but I have no hesitation in saying that the Minister of Public Works would not be prepared to say that if Canada made an exhibit there at all it included the building as well as the contents, and the building ought to be of high order. My hon. friend knows that it had a shingled roof on it, without paint, as other buildings had, and when the hon. gentleman says that it was a credit to Canada, then we will have to ascribe that entirely to his exalted taste, which is at variance with that of every half-cultured gentleman in this country.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I fear that I must set myself down as having no intelligence, in the opinion of the hon. gentleman. But I was very much surprised at his strictures upon the Canadian building at Buffalo. I myself have heard very many encomiums made on the style of architecture and the suitability of the building for such purpose. It is true it had a shingle roof, but I think that if the hon. gentleman will examine a great many of the other buildings at Buffalo he will find that they have shingle roofs, too. If he will examine many of the most beautiful and artistic buildings of the present day he will find that they have shingle roofs. The hon. gentleman has spoken of the situation of the building in the Buffalo grounds.


James Clancy: I did not criticise that.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: The hon. gentleman has not criticized that, but I want to point out to him that the situation was for business purposes an extremely good one. The situation was near the exhibits at the exhibition buildings and especially near to where the agricultural exhibits, in which Canada was most largely engaged, were placed. The other state buildings, which the hon. gentleman "has compared with it, were placed away at an outside corner of the grounds, a place which would have been extremely inconvenient for Canadian visitors or exhibitors to make their rendezvous or headquarters. As a matter of fact at the end of the PanAmerican exhibition there was a gathering of the different state commissioners and they severely took to task the exhibition authorities for having placed their state buildings in such an unsatisfactory situation. They instanced the situation of the Canadian building as being so superior to that in which the state buildings were placed and said that it was an unfair advantage which had been given to Canada, an unfair advantage due to my own insistence that the Canadian building should not be placed among the state buildings.


James Clancy: Tlie lion, gentleman was wise In not putting it among the state buildings.


Andrew B. Ingram: Who is H. C. Bride, the architect ? Is he an American or a Canadian architect ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: He is an architect, of London, Ont.


Andrew B. Ingram: I see that he received $1,300 in fees. What was the total of the fees he received for his work in connection with that building ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I cannot, off-hand, say what the total would he. I will give you the total when I come down with the supplementary vote. Mr. Bride got the usual architectural fees with the addition of some travelling expenses for having to go to Buffalo and spend some time there arranging the contracts for the building.


David Henderson: Mr. Chairman, I do not pretend to be a critic of the building; in fact, it was scarcely completed when I saw it. My attention was drawn more to the character of what I saw inside. I thought that if the furniture in that building was intended to be an exhibit of Canadian furniture, it should have bpen of a higher order. I think I mentioned this to the gentleman in charge at the time. I thought it was a grand opportunity to make a first-class exhibit of Canadian woods and furniture. I do not know whether the furniture was made there or whether it was made In Canada, but it did not come up to the mark of what I thought should have been found in the Canadian building.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: The furniture was not intended to be used as an exhibit, but it was supplied by the company, which, I believe, is a consolidation of the furniture^ Jnanufaeturers of Ontario. I forget the exact name, but I think it is the Canada Furniture Manufacturing Company. They asked to be allowed to furnish that building free of charge to the government and they put in what they considered to be their very best exhibit.


David Henderson: I do not think it was.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I am not responsible for it. They had a free hand, and they did what they thought to their own interest. I must confess that 1 thought, myself, while visiting it, that it was very handsome furniture. At the end of the exhibition there was some slight damage to some of it and the commissioner recommended that we should pay them a small indemnity for that damage-I think $250. That is all the government had to pay for the use of all the furniture in the building.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: 


George Taylor: What disposition was made of the furniture ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: It was returned to the people who sent it.


George Taylor: No, but that which was used V


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: It was all used and returned to the people who sent it.


George Taylor: I see that is not the case with the Glasgow exhibition. I see that there were large sums paid for carpets.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: No, there was no such arrangement at Glasgow.


George Taylor: What was done -at Glasgow ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: The furniture has been packed away for use at Woolverhampton.


Edward Frederick Clarke: I suppose we will get all the particulars of the sale of the building at Buffalo V


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Yes, when the supplementary estimates come down.
For renewing and improving Canadian exhibit at Imperial Institute, London, $3,000.


James Clancy: This is a matter that has invited discussion in the past. It has been stated in this House that the Imperial Institute, as far as it was educational in Great Britain, was a failure. The hon. gentleman is asking for the same sum this year that he had last. I am not urging an increase of the expenditure, but I think the hon. gentleman will agree with me tiiai if we had an exhibition of that kind in Great Britain which is ever to serve some useful purpose, it ought to accomplish that end to some extent. Those who have visited Great Britain tell me, because, personally I have no knowledge of it whatever, that it is not in the right place, that it is a back number if one may be permitted to use such a slang, and-^I think we had a promise from the hon. minister last year, as well as, I think, from the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Fielding) that something would be done to make that expenditure although a very small one, somewhat effective, either by increasing it or in some other way.


Samuel Hughes: Before the hon. minister rises to speak possibly oue answer will serve for two questions. I understand that the Imperial Institute so far as it is being utilized for the purpose for which it has hitherto existed and was designed has been closed and that the materials have been moved to some other part of the city of London.


Tlie MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: In reply, first to tlie lion, member for Victoria (Mr. Hughes), I would say that the Imperial Institute just now is in a transition stage and has been within the last few months. It has been an entirely independent organization under a commissioner, or a president-I think he is called- and a board appointed by various authorities in the old country. Lately there have been several meetings at which it is apparent to me, having had reports of those meetings both from Lord Strathcona and through the press, that the Imperial Institute has been handed over to the Imperial Board of Trade, one of the departments of tlie Imperial government. So far I have not been able to find out exactly what that department intends to do. The representative of Canada at the Imperial Institute, Mr. Watson, has written to me several times and he informs me that, as far as he can gather, not having entire information from the authorities, that the work and objects of the Institute will be continued very much on the same lines, but under different authority and control. The exhibits are still in the same building and they are to be continued there as far as I can obtain any information, but it is in a transition stage. In regard to the exhibits there, I would first like to point out to the hon. member for Bothwell (Mr. Clancy) and the committee that the exhibits have not been under the control of this parliament. They have been supplied by the various provincial governments, and it has been the provincial governments which have managed them, looked after them, repaired them and kept them in order. At the time of the Paris Exhibition, when we had a very extensive collection of mineral exhibits from Canada and very considerable forestry and other exhibits, I was urged by Lord Strathcona and those interested in the Imperial Institute to place them in the Imperial Institute. When I was in England I visited the Institute, and I found the conditions much as the hon. gentleman has described. Our exhibits there are not a credit to Canada in their numbers or their character, or in the condition they are in. Many of them are very old, and should be replaced, while others ought to be repaired. In consequence of the opening of the Glasgow exhibition, the Paris exhibits which I intended for the Imperial Institute were sent to Glasgow, and at the present time they are in the exhibit at the Royal Exchange in London. Last autumn various people in London interested in colonial investments decided to have a London exhibition of the colonial exhibits at Glasgow. We were asked to send our exhibits there and after a good deal of discussion and some hitches the exhibit at the Royal Exchange was arranged for, and will be opened on the 1st of March. I was
authorized by my colleagues to do this, and as it was believed that especially the mineral exhibit would be of vast interest to the investing public in London, many who are interested in mining matters in Canada urged strongly that these exhibits should be shown in the financial centre of the world. At the close of the Royal Exchange exhibition, it is the intention to send a large portion of this exhibit to the Imperial Institute if the arraugements in connection with tlie Imperial Institute then admit of it. Some of this vote last year was used in carrying the exhibits to London, and in cleaning them up and repairing them.


Edward Frederick Clarke: If my memory serves me right, the attention of the minister was drawn on a former occasion to the unsatisfactory character of the Canadian exhibits at the Imperial Institute. Did I understand from the hon. gentleman, that the Imperial Institute is not under the same management now as it was formerly ? Are these old exhibits to be permitted to remain or are they to be brought up to date ? Friends of mine who have visited the Imperial Institute have expressed their regret to me that a more creditable Canadian exhibit was not made there. Are any steps being taken to direct the attention of those who placed the exhibits there, to the necessity, in the interest of Canada, of having them renewed ? There is no use spending money to have a second or third-class exhibit, because that does the country harm rather than good.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I have urged on the representatives of tlie provinces whose exhibits these are that they should do something. I confess that there has been an inclination on the part of the provinces to throw that responsibility and expense on us. I have not received any official documents which would bear on this, but the tenor of the replies I have had in conversation is : If you do not think the exhibit good enough, go ahead yourself. I fear that the probability of the provincial governments doing a great deal towards having a good exhibit at the Imperial Institute is, to say the least, doubtful. Of course, I have no authority to interfere with these exhibits, but I hope that when the Royal Exchange exhibition is over, the management of the Imperial Institute will be finally settled upon, and then I will be able to utilize this vote to the best possible advantage. I want to warn hon. gentlemen, that $3,000 will not be sufficient to make a very creditable exhibit at the Imperial Institute, and especially if the provincial authorities are going to drop out I will have to ask for a larger sum.


Samuel Hughes: Has the new emigration building which is to be opened up by this government on the Strand, anything to do with the Department of Agriculture ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: No.


Samuel Hughes: In some parts of the United States which it has been my privilege to visit, the minister has Canadian products exhibited.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Not my department.


Andrew B. Ingram: I understand that the superintendent of immigration in London is to have new offices, on account of the complaints made that the intending emigrant had no means by which he could judge of the resources of Canada, and for that reason arrangements were being made to exhibit the mineral and agricultural products of Canada in the business centre of London. Is it the intention of the department to provide the London immigration office with exhibits, as well as the Imperial Institute ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: That matter is entirely in charge of the Minister of the Interior. While it has been discussed in general terms and the council has quite approved of his action, I have not the details which I would like to give to the hon. gentleman. The Minister of the Interior will have estimates before the JLouse in connection with which he will give full details.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Has the minister explained how this 63,000 is to be expended ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: 
Frederick Debartzch Monk: Then a portion of this $3,000 will be for rents ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: No, for the purpose of utilizing the showroom in the city by preparing and sending temporary exhibits of fruit, poultry, &c.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: The minister is of course aware that the Canadian Pacific Railway Mr. HUGHES (Victoria).
Company intend erecting a very large building in the city of London, in a very favourable spot, and instead of selecting a showroom for Canadian exhibits, it is a question in my mind whether it would not be more economical and better to make some arrangement with that company.
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, employees paid from this sum not to be subject to the Civil Service Act, $210,000.


James Clancy: I do not suppose the hon. gentleman intends to go on with either this or the next item to-night. They are items of very great importance, and I hope he will allow them to stand.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I do not want to press them unduly, but I would like to discuss this item to-night. Professor Robertson, who is In charge of this expenditure, is in Ottawa to-day. He will have to leave to-morrow or the next day on some important business, and he has frequently to be away from town ; so that it would be very convenient, and I would like very much to supply the information which my hon. friends would like to have on this very Important item to-night. The night is young, we have still a couple of hours before us, and I think the hon. gentleman could get a good deal of information out of me in that time if he made the effort.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I do not think it is fair to ask us to enter upon the discussion of such a large item until we have had a meeting of the Committee on Agriculture to examine this gentleman. He is going to be in Ottawa again during the session, and before we go into this item, which shows a considerable increase over previous years, we should have a chance to find out from him what the cause of this increase is.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: The question of the Committee on Agriculture is hardly germane to this.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Oh, yes it is.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Professor Robertson, it is true, appears before that committee, but does not deal [DOT] very much with this vote. Besides, tne Committee on Agriculture has already asked that the immigration evidence should be given to it before the officers of my department are called, which means that their evidence will be postponed to a considerably later date ; and if my estimates are to stand until Professor Robertson and other officers of my department appear before the Committee of Agriculture, the work of the House will be seriously impeded, in a way that I do not think would be fair or right.
369 FEBRUARY 25, 1902 ' 370	
Mi*. CLANCY. Well, I Imagined that Professor Robertson was a servant of the people of Canada, and that we should consult the convenience of this House rather than that of Professor Robertson or any of the employees. The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE. Nobody is suggesting anything else. Mr. CLANCY. My hon. friend is asking too much in asking us to proceed to-night with an item of this importance, involving such a large expenditure and such large interests. He surely does not propose that we should go on with it before we have had time to consult a single report or to obtain some knowledge of it. The hon. gentleman may be very anxious to make this statement, which will be of use to the House and the country ; but it is only fair to the members of this House that they should have some opportunity of acquiring such information upon it as will enable them to judge intelligently of the hon. gentleman's statements. To deprive us of this opportunity, it seems to me, is going too far, and I hope the hon. gentleman will not insist on taking up any of these large items to-night. Mr. AVILSON. Did the Minister of Agriculture say that the committee have asked that Mr. Pedley should be examined first ? The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE. I had it from the chairman that they wished to have the immigration officers before the officers of my department. Mr. WILSON. No, sir. All I know is that the chairman of the committee came to me some time last week and told me that Mr. Pedley would be before the committee today. This was changing the regular order of things. Last year the committee did not meet until late in the session to discuss these questions, though I was anxious that immigration matters should be taken up. They said no, it is much more important that we should first take up the work of the farm, so that the evidence given before the committee would be distributed to members while they are here. The committee has not asked for Mr. Pedley, neither was I anxious at this particular time to go on with Mr. Pedley, because I wanted to have more time to look into the reports of the Minister of the Interior and the evidence given on immigration last year ; but, as a matter of course, when the chairman of the committee said to me that Mr. Pedley was to be before the committee to-day, I raised no objection, and I think we on this side of the House are perfectly willing that the people from the Experimental Farm should be examined first. The committee had a very short .session to-day, for two reasons : in the first place, the chairman missed his train yesterday and was not present-he was not to blame for that and, in the next place, we appointed a temporary chairman	and had the report of the first meeting read, and, as Mr. Pedley had not come there sharp on time, and there was another meeting which many of us wanted to attend, the committee by a unanimous vote decided to adjourn until next Thursday ; and it was decided that Mr. Pedley should then come before us. But there is no reason why Mr. Robertson or anyone else cannot be substituted for Mr. Pedley, so far as I know. The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE. All I can say is that the chairman of the committee came to me the other day, immediately after the first meeting, and said that an expression had been given in favour of having the immigration officers first-and I think the hon. gentleman himself was the one who asked it. Mr. AVILSON. No, sir. The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE. I of course acquiesced in the desire of the committee, and Mr. Pedley came this morning. The chairman himself was not present. Mr. Pedley arrived about five minutes after the hour fixed for the meeting, but the committee had adjourned at the desire of some hon. gentlemen opposite who wished to attend their caucus, which of course was a proper desire. If the hon. gentlemen wish to change that and have the officers of my department brought first, they must deal with that in the Committee on Agriculture. I have no control over that committee, and the committee will call such officers as it wishes in regular order. But it has commenced by calling Mr. Pedley, and not my officers. Mr. AVILSON. AVell, I do not think the Chairman of the Committee on Agriculture would wish to misrepresent anybody. He was chairman last year, and a very fair chairman. But he must have misunderstood me. I certainly did not propose that we should have the immigration business first. I may say it has not been customary for the Committee on Agriculture by motion to ask people to come and give evidence. The chairman of the committee has usually arranged that. It is true we brought up the matter at the first meeting of the committee this year, and there was a desire expressed by the members that we should know in advance who were to come before us to give evidence. There can be no difficulty about arranging for Mr. Robertson or any other person the Minister of Agriculture desires, to come and give evidence before Mr. Pedley is heard. Mr. JOHNSTON (Cardwell). The hon. Minister of Agriculture is labouring under a wrong impression when he says that the committee only sat five minutes after the hour fixed for its meeting. I am a member of the committee and was mere the whole time, and I know that the chairman remained there for twenty-five minutes after the appointed hour.


Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).: The hon. minister must remember thar these items relate to his department, as to which there is a regular meeting of the committee, and in this respect they differ from the items of almost every other department. Some of the work, which might ordinarily be done in Committee in Supply, is done before the Committee of Agriculture, and therefore there is grave reason for not pressing any of these items before they have been threshed out in that committee.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I am quite ready to allow them to stand or to go on, but if we do not proceed, I will have to throw the onus on hon. gentlemen opposite. I would ask them to allow me to go on with some other items.


Robert Laird Borden: Certaiuly, I suppose there are other items concerning which the meeting of the committee is not so important.
Item allowed to stand.
Quarantine-Salaries and contingencies of organized districts and public health in other districts, $110,000.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: This is an item which covers the whole quarantine service of my department. It deals with the seaboard quarantine, and this year it deals very largely with the quarantine along the international boundary line between Canada and the United States. The item has assumed much larger proportions recently in consequence of the unfortunate prevalence of small-pox in the United States and the alarm which our people all along the frontier have felt with regard to it. The vote is however the same as it was last year when we had the same difficulty to contend against. It covers the quarantine at Halifax. Charlottetown, St. Johns, Sydney, Grosse Isle at Quebec, Victoria, British Columbia, and also all the unorganized quarantine work done on our seaboard and along the frontier. In addition to this we have recently had to do a good deal in connection with public health in the territories in consequence of the prevalence of small-pox. We have had to take steps to protect that portion of the country which, not being organized into a province, has no provincial authority or organization to deal with public health. We have had to assume that work and will have to continue it for the future until the territories are so organized as to have proper provincial organization.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: What proportion of this sum is devoted to quarantine in the North-west Territories, and what portion is rendered necessary by the prevalence of small-pox there ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: The work in the territories has been all on Mr. JOHNSTON (Cardwell).
account of small-pox. I have here an item for frontier inspection and the prevention of small-pox, of $50,000. That is not altogether for the territories but a good deal has been spent in the protection of the frontier and the international line between us and the United States. I have not the details of how much was spent for the interior work in the territories and how much on the international boundary.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: That $50,000 is for the protection of the frontier through the whole of Canada.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Yes, as well as the territories.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: What amount are you obliged to expend in the territories out of this sum against small-pox ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: In round numbers about $30,000 for the territories alone.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: That is impossible.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Perhaps the hon. gentleman does not realize that that includes the Yukon. That was the amount of the supplementary vote last session, called for by the work in the territories. I cannot say positively that the whole of it will be expended this current year, but it is not unlikely, as the distances are very great and the expenses very heavy and every precaution must be taken to prevent the small-pox spreading among the Indians.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: What proportion of the $50,,000 is spent to protect the Yukon ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I said $30,000 for the whole of the territories including the Yukon, and I could not divide it off-hand.


James Clancy: I suppose the hon. gentleman is prepared to give the names of the physicians appointed for the frontier service, the dates of their appointment and the sums that they received.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: 
Frederick Debartzch Monk: The hon. minister might give the principal officers.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: They are all the same in this list. The principal officers are the permanent officers.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: 
Thomas Simpson Sproule: The hon. gentleman might give the list of names.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: In Prince Edward Island, there is Dr. James McLennan, who was appointed on the 15th November, 1901, at a salary of $100 a month, though his services have been dispensed with.


James Clancy: What was the date of dispensing with his services ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I find that while Dr. McLennan appears on this list as having been released from employment, yet, in consequence of a winter trial service at Summerside, he is acting again. He commenced work on the 15th November, 1901, and lias been working since with some intermission.


James Clancy: In fact, he has been permanently employed so far.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: He commenced on the 15tli November last, and is still employed. As soon as the necessity . for his employment ceases, his services will be dispensed with. At Georgetown, P.E.I., there is Dr. D. A. Stewart, who began on the 13th February, 1902 and is still employed at $100 a month. In Nova Scotia, there are the following :-At Digby, Dr. L. H. Morse, who commenced on the 16th March, 1901, still employed ; Yarmouth, Dr. A. J. Fuller, commenced 18th March, 1901 ; Bear River and Clementsport, Dr. I,. ,T. Lovitt, commenced 20th March, 1901 ; Weymouth, Dr. E. J. Elderkin, commenced 21st March, 1902 ; Louisbourg, Dr. F. O'Neil, commenced 18th May, 1901. In New Brunswick, at McAdam Junction, there is Dr. W. T. Ryan, commenced February 3rd, 1902. The list for Ontario is as follows Sault Ste. Marie, Dr. R. J. Gibson, commenced 22nd November, 1900-this was one of the first appointments and this officer is still employed ; Mine Centre, Dr. David McKenzie, commenced 15th March, 1901 ; Beaver Mills,


Dr.  A. A.@: McCrimmon, commenced 30th May, 1901 ; Cornwall, Dr. J. H. Wheeler, commenced 17th January, 1902. In Manitoba, there are the following At Sprague, J. W. Caldwell, commenced 22nd January, 1901. This officer, I should explain, is a guard, and not a doctor. In some places, we employ a guard to watch the trains and report to a doctor in the neighbourhood. The guard gets $2.50 a day. At Emerson there is Dr. D. Henderson, commenced 22nd November, 1900 ; Gretna, Dr. F. B. lle-Kenty, commenced 22nd November, 1900 ; Morden, Dr. C. F. Sharp, commenced January 3rd, 1901 ; Crystal City, Dr. G. Riddell, witli two guards under him ; Killarney, Dr. J. A. Whyte, commenced 22nd November, 1900 ; Boissevain, Dr. It. K. Campbell, commenced 22nd November, 1900 ; Deloraiue, Dr. R. S. Thornton, commenced 22nd November, 1900. In the North-west Territories, there are three At North Portal, Dr. It. M. Mitchell, commenced 7th February, 1901; Northport, Rr. J. J. Travis, commenced 7th November, 1901; Carnduff, Dr. T. W. F. Lockhart, commenced February 20tli. 1902. In British Columbia, there are the following Huntingdon, Dr. R. H. Port, commenced 24tli April, 1900 ; Grand Forks, Dr. John Westwood, commenced 29th November 1900 ; Carson, T. K. Dunlop, guard ; Cascades, W. W. Coates, guard ; White's Camp, W. L. Wells, guard ; Rossland, Dr. A. C. Sinclair, commenced February 2nd, 1901 ; Nortliport, Dr. J. J. Travis, commenced February 7th, 1901 ; Kettle River District, Dr. R. W. Jakes, commenced November 29th, 1900 ; Itykerts, Dr. W. W. Walken, commenced February 1st, 1902 ; Fort Steele, Dr. Watt, commenced 9th April, 1901 ; Tobacco Plains Trails, SI. Phillipps and Jas. Langley, guards ; Log Cabin, Dr. S.* D. Cameron, commenced July 3rd, 1901.


James Clancy: Is that the whole list of those employed in the frontier service ?
The S1INISTER OF AGRICULTURE. Yes.


James Clancy: As the hon. gentleman gave it, they still seem to be in the service. Now, if the reports that come to me arc correct there are others than those the hon. minister has mentioned. I would like to ask him if there is not a medical gentleman by the name of Dr. McCully employed at Rondeau Point, Ontario ?


The SIINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I was wrong in saying that these were all that have been employed. This, I am informed, is a list of fhose who are still employed. Some have been engaged along the chain of lakes during the summer for short periods at different times. I have not a list of them here.


James Clancy: I think the committee would be interested in hearing the list of those that have been employed, with the

length of service of each and the amount paid. Perhaps the hon. gentleman could give us that ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I have not that list with me to-night.


James Clancy: Then, the hon. minister had better let the item stand.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: The hon. minister did not give the list of the chief officers for Quebec employed along the frontier.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I am glad to say that the United States immediately south of Quebec is in such a healthy state that we have not required to watch the frontier. We have not had to appoint any one in the province of Quebec, and, I believe, with the exception of Cornwall, none in eastern Ontario.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: We have had a good deal of small-pox coming into Quebec from the States.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: We have no reports to that effect either from the local authorities or frotn anybody who required our action. As a general rule we have taken, in the first place, reports of the United States authorities as to the condition of affairs in the country south of our boundary ; and, in the second place, the request for reports of the provincial health authorities. Where the provincial health authorities have not expressed any fear in regard to the frontier, and where we have reports of satisfactory conditions to the south of the line, we have not appointed any officer.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Has there been a report from the provincial health authorities that there is no small-pox in the New England states ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: No, I did not say that. I said that the provincial health authorities have made no request for us to guard the frontier, and that we have had reports from the United States health authorities as to the condition of health in the different states along the border, and that we took these two sources of information as our guide.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Is there any report as to the state of health in the New England states in the possession of the department ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: The reports of the health authorities of the U nited States are all sent to my department, and my chief superintendent of public health studies these all the time.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I understand there is a report in the department that there is no small-pox to fear in the New England states, no smallpox in existence in the New England states. I would like to see that report.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: There is no report showing there is no small-Mr. CLANCY.
pox in the United States. But their reports do say that the health authorities there are handling it and managing it so that there is no likelihood of its spreading.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Can the minister tell us liow these medical men operate to prevent the importation of small-pox ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: They watch passing trains. They go down below the frontier and look at the people on the trains, wherever an officer is appointed.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I understood the minister to say that he does not put an officer on unless lie has information from the American health authorities that there is small-pox on the other side of the line.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Not quite that. We watch the health reports of the United States, all the health reports from all sources in the United States come to our department, and the superintendent of public healtli keeps watch of these, and if the conditions south of the line are not such as to be a menace to our health, we do not appoint any officer; but when in his judgment they menace our safety, then we appoint an officer.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I noticed last season that the disease was imported especially from Michigan. What precautions have been taken to prevent travellers bringing it across the line from that part of the United States ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: We have had officers at the several ports opposite northern Michigan, where boats come from that region, and they watch the travel all the time.


Samuel Hughes: Has the minister under consideration the formation of a Dominion board of health, or would it come under his department ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I think if any board of health were organized it would come under my department, which now deals especially with that subject. While that question might be discussed, it has hardly reached.a point where I could make a statement.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: In case of the importation of the disease by trains or otherwise, has any effort been made to have the health department on the other side bear the expense of looking after this ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: They do it for themselves on their own side of the line, the same as we bear the expense of looking after small-pox on our side of the line. We have not asked them to share the expense of protecting our health.


Mr. PRINGLE.: Is there any small-pox now in that portion of New York state known as the Adirondack Mountains,

through which the Ottawa and New York Railway runs ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I noticed something of that kind, and therefore put a man on at Cornwall.


Robert Abercrombie Pringle: What are the reports now in regard to small-pox in that locality ? I understand that there is none, that there is no possibility of any small-pox coming over that line, and that that man is only employed in examining passengers on that railway.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: My officer says that the later reports show that there is no danger, and that we may be able to dispense with that man's services.


Mr. HACKETT.: I want to ask the minister to take better means to protect the people of Prince Edward Island from a smallpox epidemic. The minister has read the names of several doctors who are stationed at ports along the shores, and they are very good men, vigilant and active, who attend to their duties in every respect. But I want to make a remark concerning a case that occurred at Georgetown, in Prince Edward Island, last fall. I do not know if the hon. gentleman who was at the head of the provincial government at the time is in the House; but I know that a man was smitten with small-pox and so declared by the doctor at that port, and he was taken into a carriage and driven from Georgetown to Kep-poch, where there is a marine hospital, a distance of thirty miles, right through the country, exposing the people to the danger of infection all through that section. 1 would ask the hon. gentleman why that was allowed to occur ? Is there any conflict between the two authorities, or why should not both authorities unite to guard the public health in that respect ? I also want to ask the hon. gentleman if all the employees- not speaking of the doctors, who are able to look after themselves-if all the attendants, and the nurses at the marine hospital at Keppoch, have been paid by the government ? Have all the bills in connection with the marine hospital at Charlottetown been paid by this government ? When we are again threatened in Prince Edward Island with an epidemic originating outside of our island, I want to impress upon the hon. gentleman that he should take the greatest care to protect the people of that province. I say it was a shameful thing that this man, declared to have small-pox, should have been driven across the country in a carriage that was not flagged to warn the people that he had small-pox, that he was allowed to talk and chat with the people on the way, and the driver broke his carriage on many occasions, and all these circumstances increased the danger of spreading the contagion. I would ask the minister why it was that that thing occurred ? Whose fault was it ? Was it the
fault of the Dominion government or of the local government ? I would ask the hon. minister to make some statement in connection with the facts and also to say whether these nurses who were employed at the hospital at Charlottetown have been paid as they required.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: In reply to the hon. gentleman I would say that I suppose I know by report the case to which he refers. It was the case of a seaman who had been some days in the port of Georgetown before the disease was discovered and the man was no longer subject to our supervision, inspection, or examination. We are responsible on the arrival of the vessel for giving that vessel a clean bill of health. When the vessel receives a clean bill of health from our officers, we have no more responsibility for anything in connection with its crew than we would have in connection with a farmer in the neighbourhood of the town. I am not aware of the details of the case such as the hon. gentleman describes. If anything has been done it has been done in no sense under the authority or control of my department. Such a case would be entirely under the control of the provincial health authorities over whom we have no control and with whom we do not interfere. As far as the hon. gentleman's question about the marine hospital at Charlottetown is concerned, I would say that there is perhaps a little confusion in the name. We have a quarantine hospital there. I do not think there is anything that is called a marine hospital at that place. The marine hospitals are in charge of my hon. friend the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Hon. Mr. Sutherland). I have no control over them and they are used for a different purpose to that for which the quarantine stations are used. As far as the quarantine station at Charlottetown is concerned, there was one case which was dealt with by my officer there and the doctor and nurses and everybody connected with the ease have been paid. I am informed that at the request of the authorities at Charlottetown, a local case was allowed to be treated at the quarantine hospital, but the local authorities have to deal with it and they have to pay for it. I simply allowed them to utilize the quarantine hospital for the convenience of the city of Charlottetown.


Mr. HUGHES (King's).: Mr. Chairman, I do not wish to dispute with the hon. member for West Prince (Mr. Hackett), but I wish to say that he has exaggerated the facts in connection with this matter. This man was taken sick at Georgetown, and as the Minister of Agriculture (ITon. Mr. Fisher) states, the marine hospital at Keppoch, near Charlottetown, was used for the reception of the patient. As soon as it was known that the man had smallpox he was driven to the hospital in a closed

carriage. How could he have been taken otherwise Y He could not have been taken on the railway. That would have been a greater danger to the public health. He was driven to the hospital in a closed carriage by a man who had had the smallpox, himself, previously. A bolt came out of the carriage on the way and they had to go to a blacksmith's shop to have the Dolt put in. There is no reason why this matter should have been brought up here at all. No government did wrong in that respect and I would ask the hon. member for West Prince if he could suggest any other way for bringing a man from Georgetown to the Keppoch hospital ? There is no use in exaggerating these things, or trying to mislead the committee, or attempting to create a false impression.


Edward Frederick Clarke: I would like to ask the hon. minister if there were any outbreaks of small-pox or other contagious diseases amongst the immigrants who arrived during the last twelve months ?
The MINISTER OE AGRICULTURE, yes, there were several cases and they were quarantined at the various quarantine stations.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Where were they from V


The MINISTER OE AGRICULTURE.: 1 do not know. They were quarantined at Halifax and Victoria, and I think Grosse Isle also. They were in every case dealt with and the disease did not spread.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Where were the immigrants from Y


The MINISTER OE AGRICULTURE.: 1 could not say off-hand. We do not investigate where they come from in our quarantine stations.


Edward Frederick Clarke: The reason I asked the hon. minister is that I notice in one of the reports of the American officers who inspect immigrants going through Canada to the United States caustic references to the condition in which some of the immigrants arrived in Canada. I want to know if there is any laxity on our part in the examination of immigrants which would cause such a report by these American officers Y


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I do not think the hon. gentleman has quite understood the situation. Of course, we are not responsible for what the steamship companies do in bringing out immigrants. When they arrive in Canada we have them examined for disease and if there is any disease among them, we quarantine them and treat them. The American authorities, I believe, have an arrangement for officers to watch immigrants arriving in Canada and this has been done at the express desire of the transportation companies who want Mr. HUGHES (King's).
to get this travel for their lines. It is done by the immigration officers of the United States, I do not think with any intention or desire to examine as to disease, but to examine as to what they consider proper qualifications of immigrants both as to their financial and mental conditions. The United States have stringent rules as to the landing of immigrants and their rule at United States ports is that ships must carry back rejected immigrants. Of course, if ships landed these immigrants in Canada and they were discovered in Chicago or Detroit as being unsatisfactory, the United States authorities could hardly force the ships to carry them back. They therefore made an arrangement by which their officers go to the port of landing and there deal with these immigrants.


Edward Frederick Clarke: What becomes of those who are rejected ?


The MINISTER OP AGRICULTURE.: The ships have to take them back.


Edward Frederick Clarke: They are not allowed to land in Canada ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: No. We have nothing to do with them at ail. This is an arrangement between the shipping companies and the United States authorities over which we have no control and over which we have no responsibility.


Edward Frederick Clarke: If these immigrants are found unsuitable by an officer of a foreign government they are not permitted to land on Canadian soil and are sent back again. Is that the situation Y


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: 1 believe so. I cannot say positively, but I believe that is what it amounts to. Of course the immigrants they deal with in this way are only those that are booked for the United States.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Charges are made that a great many of these immigrants land in Canada, remain here temporarily, and then cross the boundary so that practically a general surveillance is exercised by these foreign immigration officers over our immigrants Y


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: No, none whatever. The immigrants that are dealt with are only those that are booked through to United States points, and who declare themselves as intending to go to the United States. Any immigrant f< r Canada is not touched or dealt with by these United States officers.


Edward Hackett: My hon. friend from King's (Mr. Hughes) who spoke a moment ago said that I had exaggerated the statement I made in connection with small-pox patients being driven from Georgetown to the marine hospital at Keppoch. The hon.

gentleman corroborated every word I said, instead of exaggerating tlie statement I made it as mild as possible. Here was a case of small-pox, a case coming to our shores where an epidemic might have been spread all over Prince Edward Island and the government of this country, or the local government, let that patient be driven through a part of the hon. gentleman's riding of King's, and a part of the riding of East Queen's from Georgetown to a point near Charlottetown, a distance of thirty miles. That man went in that carriage on which there was placed no flag, without anything being provided to notify the people along the line of the route of the fact that a small-pox case was being carried. The hon. gentleman says that the carriage broke down and that they had to go to a blacksmith's shop to repair it. I am not exaggerating the statement at all, and the hon. gentleman has himself confirmed my statement that this patient having the smallpox was driven thirty miles through the province of Prince Edward Island, liable to spread the disease all over the country, and yet the hon. gentleman makes light of it. The public health of our people is of great importance, and every precaution should be taken to safeguard it. When this gentleman gets up here and says I have exaggerated, he says what is not correct.


James Joseph Hughes: What would you do with the patient under the circumstances ?


Some hon. MEMBERS: Kill him.


James Joseph Hughes: Let me make a further statement. There was some local discussion about this, and the patient stated himself in the newspapers mat he was quite comfortable during the drive, that every precaution was taken, that he had no fault to find with the means to bring him to the hospital where he would [DOT]get the best medical treatment, and the proof of his being well cared for is that he recovered in a short time, and that the disease did not spread.


George Taylor: Last year this same vote was asked for and also a supplementary vote. Will the $110,000 cover the whole service this year or will the minister ask for more ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I hope that this will be sufficient, but that will depend entirely on the extent of the outbreak of the disease, which I cannot foretell.


George Taylor: In 1895-6, $35,000 was all that was asked for this service but this year three times that amount is to be voted. How is it possible that there could be such an increase in this item ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: In the first place, the work in connection
with the frontier was not in existence at all in 1895-6, and in the second place we had not a small-pox outbreak, and we had not the Yukon to look after. All these additions have caused the increase.


George Taylor: I think the real explanation is that the minister had a number of doctors that he wanted to give $100 a month to, in order that they might draw the money and do nothing. I suppose the minister will give us the names of all the doctors that are employed in the department so that we may know where this extra $70,000 went.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I will get that information.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Did we spend the entire $110,000 last year ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: The $110,000 is for the current year, and I am afraid we will have to ask for a supplementary vote.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: What was the amount we spent last year ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: 


Frederick Debartzch Monk: And you are asking for $35,000 more.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Yes, and we will have to ask for more still. I regret to say that this expenditure by my department is only a small part of what the people of Canada are to-day paying on account of this small-pox outbreak. If the hon. gentleman will refer to the expenditure by the local and municipal authorities, he will find that probably several million dollars are expended in Canada this year on account of this outbreak of small-pox.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: But the damage small-pox may cause has nothing to do with the inspection along the frontier. The minister tells us that there is no danger from the New England states, and mat the only danger is from the Western states. Thirty-five thousand dollars in addition to what we spent last year is a very large amount, when the prospect is that we will not require so much. I think that vote ought to be reduced.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: The hon. gentleman does not seem to have followed the discussion. The expenditure along the frontier has been intermittent but constantly increasing, and the prospect seems to be that it will go on. If it does not go on the money will not be spent, but I fear that it is necessary to provide for this contingency, and this year not only will I have to spend $110,000, but I shall have to ask for a considerable amount more to cover the expenditure for the next four months of the current year. A large amount of this money has been spent in the Yukon and in the territories dealing with small-pox

outbreaks, and the kon. gentleman is mistaken in thinking that it has all been expended in watching the frontier.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: It seems to me that we are mounting up this vote at a great rate.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: We unfortunately are.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The minister tells us that a doctor goes on each train and examines the patients. At what distance from the boundary line does he board the train, and what does he do in the case of travellers who come fx'om infected districts, but who may not have the disease themselves ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: The doctor works as conveniently as he can, and he boards the train at different distances from the frontier according to the location of the stations. Whenever people come from what are called infected districts in the United States, we require them to be vaccinated if they have not been already. The officer examines them as carefully as possible, and if he sees any suspicious cases, he detains them.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What does the hon. gentleman mean by suspicious cases? A traveller coming fi'orn a district where small-pox is prevalent may have signs of the disease, and he may have been vaccinated. Is he refused admission ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Yes, and is vaccinated.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I have no doubt the hon. gentleman takes due precautions for preventing the importation of disease ; but if the pi'ess can be relied on, we imported a good many small-pox cases from Michigan last summer, and I believe it is pretty prevalent in some of the lumber districts in Canada to-day. It does seem as if some more stringent precautions ought to be taken.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: The hon. gentleman understands that there is a period of incubation for this disease during which it is not recognizable ; and of course we cannot expect to keep everybody who comes from the United States in quarantine for fifteen days. That would be an interruption of traffic which people would not submit to. What we do is to vaccinate any who are suspected of disease. Of course, any actual cases which are discovered we stop at once and deal with. I do not think we can do much more ; I do not know what more we can do. That has been the working out of the problem by the Superintendent General of Public Health, and I confess I have not myself been able to suggest any further precautions. I may say that one or two cases have occurred which are supposed to have come from the United States. They are cases in which Hon. Mr. FISHER.
the disease was in incubation and quite unrecognizable ; and we must acknowledge that no quarantine regulations would absolutely shut out such cases when they come into the country overland. If they came across the ocean, we might do so.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I refer to cases which have come in on ti'ains. I was informed last summer by a passenger that many passengers came from districts in Michigan where the disease was prevalent, and they were neither vaccinated nor detained, but were coming into the province with perfect impunity.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Was there a doctor on the train ?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I do not know.


Edward Hackett: I understood the hon. gentleman to say that if an epidemic were brought by a vessel to Prince Edward Island, the local authoi'ities woxxld be charged with the cost of dealing with it. At all events, we have this fact, that this smallpox patient was taken charge of by the local government and was driven through the province for thirty miles without any precaution being taken to prevent the spread of the disease. My hon. friend from King's asked, what would you do in a similar case? The proper course to pursue was this-to have a building in the vicinity of Georgetown, where this patient could be placed and attended to by nurses. They have had another case since, and the patient was placed in the vicinity of Georgetown and attended by nurses, and not driven through the country, as the other one was, it would almost appear for the purpose of spreading this dread disease through the province. I have only stated what I know to be correct, and the hon. member for King's has corroborated the statement I made. I think there must be some difficulty between the government of Prince Edward Island and the government of Canada when smallpox cases can be treated in this way. The hon. gentleman said the man was comfortable when he was driven thirty, miles through the country, and had his carriage broken down. How could he be comfortable, or how could he be expected to r ecover ? I was told that the poor man was so terror-stricken that ho was unable to walk from the carriage to the hospital, and had to be helped. I say that such conduct on the part of the government or on the part of any man is a disgrace and a discredit to our country, and that we should unite to see that humanity, at all events, is extended to people in such a condition.


Edward Frederick Clarke: I took the liberty of making an inquiry of the Minister of Agriculture respecting the steps which had been taken by the United States authorities to examine immigrants arriving in Canada. I had glanced over the report of the United States Commissioner of Immigration for the

past year, and I thought I was justified in asking the question I did from the recollection I had of the statements contained in that report. I have obtained a copy of the report since, and it fully justifies the statement I made. I find at page 32 of the report, under the heading of ' Diseased Immigrants ' the following statement. I will not occupy the time of the committee by reading the statistics of the number of diseased immigrants sent back by the United States. They totalled 309, composed of various nationalities. The report states :
These represent, however, only such as appll-fed for admission to the United States, and the bureau reiterates the opinion heretofore expressed that the vigilant inspection at our ports has resulted, to some extent, in diverting diseased aliens to Canada, whence they surreptitiously effect an entrance across our northern boundary line. An attempt was made to cheek this evil by locating a surgeon of the United States marine hospital service at Liverpool, England, who by the consent of the various steamship lines plying to Canadian ports, was permitted to make a physical examination of the passengers. The experiment, however, proved unsuccessful, as some of the vessels brought diseased aliens who had been rejected by the said officer, and there were no means of deterring any of the said lines from bringing diseased persons to Canada, whose declared purpose to remain there would be no bar to their subsequently crossing the boundary line and coming into this country. That diseased persons who have been rejected at ports of this country do actually effect entrance later, probably through Canada, the bureau has heretofore reported that it had satisfactory evidence.
As a partial check on this practice Dr. Victor G. Heiser, of the marine hospital service, has been stationed with the force of immigration officials at Quebec, and there makes an examination of arriving aliens, though, of course, his report that any alien is diseased does not debar that alien from admission to Canada, although the steamship lines agree to return to the foreign port of embarkation those destined confessedly to the United States who are found to be afflicted with a dangerous contagious disease. This action of the steamship line in any particular instance, it seems hardly necessary to say, is contingent upon the willingness' of the diseased alien to be returned to the port from which he embarked.
Then there is on page 34, under the heading of Immigration Through Canada, a statement showing an increase since the 30tli June, 1897, from 6,542 to 21,647 last year, and the commissioner goes on to observe
While the ratio of increase over the arrivals of aliens through Canada last year is comparatively small, it is to be remembered that the figures above represent only such as state their ultimate destination to be this country ; others, who feel a doubt as to their ability to pass inspection, may, and doubtless do, avail themselves of the advantage of a landing and temporary residence in Canada to effect an entry over the boundary line.
The subject of immigration through Canada is now being considered by the department and the various Canadian transportation interests, with the view to effecting an agreement whereby the evils of the present system may be, if not obviated altogether, at least materially lessened.
That is a most extraordinary statement with regard to the quality and character of the immigrants arriving in Canada to appear in the annual report of the commissioner of the United States. It seems to me extraordinary that an officer of a foreign government should go to Quebec and inspect, not only the immigrants ostensibly for the United States, but all the immigrants on the vessels.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: He has no authority to do so.


Edward Frederick Clarke: I take this from the official report of the Commissioner General on Immigration. Surely it is not the practice to bring to Canada immigrants, who would not be admitted into the United States direct because of their physical disability, in order that these immigrants may work their way through this country into the United States ? Should we not have as rigid an inspection of all immigrants as exists on the other side of the line? If they are not fit mentally and physically, they should not be permitted to land here. We should put some barrier in the way of promiscuous immigration. I should like to know whether the Commissioner General of Immigration of the United States is justified by the facts in making the statements I have just read. Those who read this report must be very unfavourably impressed ns regards the quality and character of at least some of the immigrants who find their way to Canada, and I would like an explanation from the Minister of Agriculture.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: What the bon. gentleman is discussing is an immigration matter and not a quarantine matter.


Edward Frederick Clarke: I am speaking of diseased immigrants.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: At New York and Boston and other American ports, there are a quarantine station and an immigration station. In the one the immigrants are dealt with from a quarantine standpoint solely, and in our ports we deal with the immigrants more severely than they are dealt with by the American officials. The diseases referred to in the report the hon. gentleman has just read are not what are called quarantineable or contagious diseases, but are dealt with by the immigration authorities at the immigration stations. I have not the detailed information necessary to satisfy the hon. gentleman on the point he raises, but that is a point which should properly come up when discussing the estimates on immigration, and



will be dealt with by the Minister of the Interior. What I said a few minutes ago was strictly correct, that while this gentleman may make a report to the United States government with regard to immigrants coming to Canada, that report does not prove that the United States officials have any control over such immigrants. It is only a private arrangement allowed by our own immigration authorities, and agreed between the United States immigration department and the transportation line, so as to facilitate the bringing of these people by our lines instead of directly to the United States. The statements as to our Canadian immigrants I do not believe to be well founded, and I am sure my hon. colleague the Minister of the Interior will deal with that matter when his estimates come up. I do not believe for a moment that the character of the immigrants who come to Canada is such as would justify statements such as have been read by my hon. friend.


Edward Frederick Clarke: I am very glad to hear the Minister ot' Agriculture say that the statements contained in this report of the Commissioner General of the United States are not justifiable. It is only fair to Canada that the Minister of the Interior should have an opportunity, when his estimates are under discussion, to make a full reply to the charges contained in this report. I took the liberty two years ago to draw attention to some statements not at all satisfactory, which appeared in the report for the then current year of the United States Commissioner General of Immigration, and I should be very glad to learn from the Minister of the Interior that the same rigid inspection is made of immigrants on this side, which is made of immigrants on the other side, and that the statement that undesirable immigrants are allowed to enter Caif-ada because of lax inspection, is not well founded.


George Taylor: I must ask the hon. minister to allow this item to stand until he brings down a statement showing where this money has gone. Take the Auditor-General's Report, page D-71, and you will find there an explanation of how this expenditure has grown from $35,000 in 1895-90, to $110,000 now. The hon. minister has told us that he spent $75,000 last year, but in the Auditor General's Report you will find that the expenditure was $94,000. He has thus deceived the House by $20,000 in his statement. He asks now $110,000, and says he will have to ask for an additional amount in the supplementaries. In the Auditor General's Report, page D-71, you will find an explanation of this extravagance down in the village of Montmagny. I find that Alphonse Labarge draws $848 for a few supplies. Let me give a few of the items so as to show the outrageous prices charged. I find four kegs of nails at $16.25; eight gallons of linseed oil at $1.10 a gallon; 163 Hon. Mr. FISHER.
pounds of putty at 8 cents a pound; Here is another charge of 163 pounds of putty at 8 cents per pound. You can go to any retail hardware store in the city of Ottawa and buy it at 3 cents a pound. 200 pounds of soft soap is charged at 13 cents per pound. There is another gentleman, Mr. Lesperance, in the same constituency who furnished some supplies. We find, for instance, a ton of coal $8.50; 22 pounds of beef at 22 cents, and 22 pounds of beef at 20 cents; coal oil, 464 gallons at 32 cents a gallon, 306 pounds of sugar at 6J cents per pound. And so it goes, hundreds and hundreds of dollars paid out by this government buying from retail merchants and paying three or four times what they can get the goods for in any respectable store. Any person who has purchased any of these goods must know that the prices named here are, to say the least of it outrageous ? Hut, it is just the same through all the Auditor General's Report. This accounts for the amount of expenditure of this government. They spend here $110,000 on a service that was given in 1896 for $35,000. it is no wonder the expenditure of this country has crept up to $57,000,000, instead of $37,000,000, the amount for which the late government conducted the affairs of the country with as great efficiency or more. Hut there were not so many doctors employed at $100 a month to do nothing.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Carried.


George Taylor: No, it is not carried. The minister will furnish the statement he promised before the item passes.
.Mr. ROSS (Ontario). I think this discussion has been useful. I know that I have gained information regarding quarantine that I had not even dreamed of. When the minister was reading the list of those employed, I did not hear the names of any officers read out as being appointed at Sarnia, Windsor or Niagara, at which points the trains come over from the United States.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: No, we have none there now. I think that for a time last summer officers were appointed at one or more of these places. 1 have promised to give a list of those temporarily employed, but not now employed. When that list is ready it will show the hon. gentleman what has been done at the frontier referred to.


William Ross: It is generally felt in this country that the state of Michigan is responsible for the small-pox in Canada. In that case, we might expect that the small-pox would come in at Sarnia. To show how the Americans do, I may say that I met a gentleman from our town returning from the west who told me that lie had been going to Michigan, but was stopped at Sarnia and not allowed to go over because he had not bpen vaccinated

within two months. The United States know how to look after the people going into their country. Here was a man perfectly healthy in appearance, but kept out of the state of Michigan, prevented even from going through on the regular line of railway, because he had not been vaccinated within two months. I do not agree with file hon. member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) that too much has been spent on quarantine. My fear is that the minister has not asked for enough to guard the country against the terrible scourge o'f small-pox.
Mr. 1AuitAM.	The difficulty does not
seem to be that not enough was asked for, but in the way it is distributed. The province of Ontario, is paying a great dear 10 prevent the spreaii or smali-pox. The matter is in the lianas of the provincial government. But, when we refer to British Columbia we tind large sums paid out by this government to prevent the spread of disease in that province. So far as 1 know, in the past few years they have been troubled a great deal in that province. But, if they forget to look after that matter I do not see why this government should be called upon to pay money for that province if it does not pay for the others. Take, for instance, the case of liossland, in British Columbia. It is a small place and in from the boundary line. Yet, there are two doctors there employed by this government. And other doctors are employed in many cases in British Columbia, ft is unfair that the government should take these measures in one province, and, to a great extent, overlook other provinces.
The MINISTER Oh' AGRICULTURE. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Ingram) must noi imagine that the expenditure of the money of this vote in British Columbia has to uo with the interior of that province, ft lias to do with the international boundary line. 1 have already explained that we acted when we knew there was the disease at any point south of the boundary line, and also that we acted on representation being made by the health authorities of the province that it was necessary. In the province of Ontario, it happens, we have been remarkably free from demands, except so far as the traffic between Ontario and Michigan was concerned-and, mainly that with the northern part of the state. We have a number of officers around Sault Ste. Marie and adjacent ports to protect our people. In the state of Washington and Oregon, the position is much worse than it is in the eastern states; and it is for that reason, largely, that we have spent more money- in proportion than in Ontario. As to the two doctors at Rossland, there is a junction just across the boundary line at North Port, and two lines come in and Uossland doctors have to watch them both.
13f


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I understand the hon. minister to say that there is disease in northern' Michigan, but not in southern Michigan. How is it, then, that the papers in Essex county say that small-pox is imported into that county from Michigan ? We see it stated in the local press also that there is small-pox not very far from Detroit-for instance I see it spoken of as existing in the Plymouth district, seventeen or eighteen miles from Detroit. If that is so, it must be the easiest thing in the world to import it with the regular travel across the line. When Canadians seek to go there without being recently vaccinated or under the influence of vaccination at the time, I am told, they are not allowed to cross. We do not seem to be exercising the same strictness against small-pox as the people of Michigan do. But we are told small-pox has been brought across the line not once, but repeatedly, last summer.


Mr. SUTHERLAND (Essex).: At the present time, the municipalities of Windsor, Walkerville and Sandwich are about to apply for a quarantine station. From time to time we have been very much exposed, and these municipalities have acted as a sort of buffer to the whole province. The result is that they have been obliged to spend large sums of money, much in excess of what other municipalities throughout the province are called upon to pay. t think along the line of the discussion tonight it would be a proper thing for the government to establish at that point a suitable quarantine station for the protection not merely of these municipalities but of the whole province.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: That seems to verify our contention that the quarantine regulations are so lax that the disease is brought across the line. There are dozens of cases of it in Essex to-day. I saw the statement within the last two days that there are between 100 and 200 cases in the county of Essex.


Robert Franklin Sutherland: There are not more than two or three cases in the whole county.


Mr. OSLER.: The Ontario government is spending a large amount of money in connection with this quarantine. Are the Ontario government and this government working in harmony or on separate lines ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: They are on separate lines, because the Ontario government's duty is to look after health within the province. Our duty is to look after the frontier alone, we do not undertake to deal with the interior of the provinces. When we have been notified by the provincial health authorities that there seems to be danger of the disease coming across the frontier, we take the necessary steps to protect them.


William Humphrey Bennett: I would like to call the minister's attention to page D-75 of the Auditor General's report, to the following item : ' Baxter, John, M.D., Thessalon, paid $810.71; Parker, F., M.I)., Bruce Mines, $387.00 ; Aylesworth, G. M., M.D., Colling-wood, $520,000. Now these payments are all in connection with looking after smallpox. May I ask the minister under what rule or system these gentlemen were paid, because these are not frontier towns or villages.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I think Thessalon is one of the lake ports, and I think the other places are too. It was represented that ships were coming in from infected parts in the United States and liable to bring small-pox ; therefor we appointed doctors there.


William Humphrey Bennett: I am sorry the hon. member for Algoma (Mr. Dyrnent) is not in his place. But it does seem odd that a small village like Thessalon should require a doctor to be paid the enormous sum of $810. There no trade at Thessalon beyond an odd vessel coming in for lumber. There is some reason for the services of medical gentlemen at the Soo. There is Dr. Gibson, $1,130, and Dr. Shepherd, $354. I may tell the minister that tlie complaint is current that all the small-pox that has infested the northern part of Ontario has been brought in across the border at Sault St. Marie. The result has been not only a huge expense to the province but to the municipalities as well. There must have been a great deal of laxity at the Sault St. Marie to have permitted so many cases to come in across the border there. What was the result ? Men coming from Michigan went to the lumber camps in that district, and with the breaking up of operations in the spring they proceeded to different parts of the province and thus transplanted these cases for distances of 100 miles. I know in our own neighbourhood, in the town of Midland and in the township of Tay, tlie result lias been the expenditure of hundred of dollars by the municipalities in looking after these cases. I am well within the mark in saying that in the township of Tay there were seven or eight cases imported directly from these districts, and the result has been that the township authorities were compelled to quarantine the people in their houses, to place guards over them to prevent communication with other persons. More than that, they had to provide means and supply provisions for them for a long ^tinie. There must have been a great laxity of surveillance at Sault Ste. Marie not to have prevented so many cases crossing the border. While I regret to bring up this case of Thessalon in the absence of the member for Algoma, it is a striking thing that at a small village like that a medical gentleman should have been paid the huge sum of $810. Dr. Aylesworth of Collingwood was also paid a large
sum, that is in the riding of North Simcoe. For the future I trust the minister will see that better means are taken at Sault Ste. Marie to prevent cases coming across and spreading through the northern part of Ontario. It is not simply a matter of spending money in looking after cases when they had got so bad as they did, but there were many cases where people died. I may mention a case that occurred in the town of Orillia. A man came in from one of those lumber districts and went to a leading hotel in the town, and it was found that he had the small-pox. The result was the closing of the hotel for a long time, and a great loss of money to the proprietor, all in consequence of this small-pox spreading from the Soo eastward and all over that district of northern Ontario.


Samuel Hughes: In my experience I chanced to be in the neighbourhood of tlie Soo about a year ago. There were two cases of small-pox detected on a train, not by a medical health officer of the provincial government, not by a medical man at all, but by some gentleman who happened to be on the train and who was familiar with it. They were in a second class car. The passengers with whom they had been associated, for how long a distance I do not know, were turned loose into the first class car and those in the first class car were run into the sleeper. One can readily imagine the sensation on that train. Those two passengers were finally quarantined in a second class coach at Sudbury and the train moved on. I can assure the minister that there was a very nervous feeling among the passengers, at all events I can speak for a good many of them. They were in doubt as to whether they should voluntarily go into quarantine, or whether they should go and get themselves fixed up by being fumigated, or what other course to pursue. I mention this to show that these two men had small-pox opened out on them and yet they had been roaming round the country and spreading the contagion.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Did they come across from Michigan ?


Samuel Hughes: Certainly.


Andrew B. Ingram: I do not know whether it is the intention of the government to appoint a travelling inspector of public health, but if they have not one, it would be well to do so. I have not had the pleasure of reading that report.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: The report of the Superintendent General of Public Health is in the Departmental Report.


Andrew B. Ingram: What is his name ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: The Director General of Public Health is Dr. Montizambert, located at Ottawa. He travels around the country.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: 


Andrew B. Ingram: And makes it his business to inquire how the medical authorities are doing their duty.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: He does not inquire into what the provincial authorities are doing, they are outside of his purview. He does not interfere with the local authorities.


Andrew B. Ingram: I am asking about the Dominion officer appointed by this government. He makes a report as to how the provincial authorities are carrying out their duties, I presume.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Yes.


William Humphrey Bennett: In respect of these two cases, that of Dr. Baxter, of Thessalon, who is paid $810. and the case of Dr. Parker, of Bruce Mines, paid the large sum of $387, what I said as to Thessalon is equally applicable to Bruce Mines. Bruce Mines is not a port of entry for vessels coming from the United States at all. I don't think there is a foot of lumber shipped from that point. There are no saw-mils there. May I ask how these two gentlemen commenced to enter upon their duties ? Was it by the direction of the minister from here upon the complaint of some person, and who was the person that did complain ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I cannot offhand tell you who it was that complained or what representations were made. It was certainly on the local representations that there was a danger of the arrival of the disease at these ports. I have not in my mind the exact representations that were made.


William Humphrey Bennett: Since the hon. gentleman has no recollection of the complaints, was it upon the representation of the member for the district ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Possibly ; I cannot say.


William Humphrey Bennett: May I ask if In the case of Collingwood it was on the representation of the local member ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Possibly ; I cannot say.


William Humphrey Bennett: These are striking coincidences in one or two of these cases. I know that these medical gentlemen are strongly of the same political stripe as the hon. gentlemen who represent these ridings and it seems to me very odd that at a small place like Thessalon this doctor should have commenced on July 1st and continued until the 31st October and that he should have commenced on February 26tli and continued until June 30tli. It is absurd to claim that in the case of Thessalon it was to watch any suspected parties who might come in on boats because it is absurd to believe that boats were plying there at that time of the
year, February 26. In the case of Dr. Parker his time commenced on the 5th of March. No boats possibly could have come in at the time. If the minister has reason to pay these medical gentlemen for services performed there, may I ask him if in the case of these applications which have been made by any of these municipalities he will be disposed to recommend the payment of any of the bills that they have been required to disburse.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I could not make any statement upon such a question until 1 receive representations from these municipalities.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Are these medical officers appointed by the Superintendent General of Public Health ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: They are appointed by him under the minister, of course.


James Clancy: It seems to me that after this discussion-


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I am a little in error in saying the appointments are made by the superintendent general. They are made by me as minister through the superintendent general of public health.


Edward Frederick Clarke: He does not recommend the appointments ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: He does not recommend the individual, lie recommends the appointment.


Andrew B. Ingram: I intended to ask the hon. minister if it is his intention to appoint a travelling inspector under the general superintendent of public health.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I have not any such intention.


James Clancy: I would like to say to the hon. minister that after this discussion, which has brought out some very important information as to the management of his department, we should have some further information. I am in no sense disposed to minimize the importance of a very effective service to prevent the spread of small-pox in Canada, but it would seem, as has been pointed out by the hon. member for East Grey (Mr. Sproule) and also by the hon. member for Ontario (Mr. Ross), that there has been a great deal of laxity. Now, the hon. minister will see the importance of giving the committee fuller information. The hon. gentleman stated that wherever an appointment was made for the frontier service it was done upon the recommendation of the local health authorities.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: No.


James Clancy: Then the hon. minister would say the local member ?


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


James Clancy: Then I will leave it an open question, whether it be on the recommendation of the local member, upon the recommendation of the local authorities, or upon the recommeudation of some person or persons other than those already stated. It is important that the committee should have that information before them, also the instructions given to persons employed under such circumstances. If the hou. gentleman will permit me, I wish to point out, while we all admit the importance of an effective service, that abuses may grow up under it. The hon. gentleman has stated that many doctors are still in the employ of the government who were originally appointed, while the services of others have ben discontinued. What the committee ought to have in the first place is the information that induced the minister to give the appointment, and in the next instance where there has been a cessation of the service, the reason for Its discontinuance. I think the hon. gentleman had better let the item stand until he gives the committee that information.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Tt is quite impossible, and I do not think it would serve any particular purpose for the director general of public health to go and visit these different localities from time to time. At the time he might visit one there might be no case of disease, and the next day after he left, there might be cases of disease.


James Clancy: The hon. gentleman quite misunderstands me. What I asked of the minister was the information that induced him to make the appointments first ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I understand that. I was coming to that.


James Clancy: Then, again, what induced him to dispense wTitli the services of those who had been employed. Was it upon the recommeudation of tile superintendent general who made a report to the hon. gentleman before he could act, or upon the report of the local physician employed in the meantime in addition to the report of the superintendent general ? The committee ought to be in possession of that information.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I do not know if I can explain it thoroughly so that the hon. gentleman will understand it. The ground upon which these gentlemen have been appointed is that it has been caused to appear to the director general of public health that there seemed to be a necessity for guarding the frontier at any one particular place. The necessity, or appearance of it, was derived from two things in particular, although other things might enter into it-the first thing, the conditions


James Clancy: prevailing on the other side of the line, and, secondly, the representations of the provincial health officers who had more information in connection with a particular locality than we had. If local or municipal representations were made they were taken into consideration. If representations were made by any well-known individuals in the locality they Were also taken into consideration. But, the appointments were made simply and solely when it was believed by the director general of public health and myself that it was necessary to guard the frontier at these particular places. The physicians who are appointed make monthly reports and the condition of affairs on the other side of the line is carefully watched by the director general. Just as soon as these monthly reports showed that there did not seem to be any further necessity of a doctor's continuance in office and when the condition of affairs on the other side of the line showed that the danger had ceased, this gentleman was notified that his services were no longer required and his appointment and pay ceased. There has been continuous employment of some. In the lake ports during the winter time the danger ceases, no vessels are arriving, and therefore there is no danger of contagion being carried. In other ports which are open all winter there might be danger. This is the system which has been carried out and it seems to me to be the only rational system we could carry out. Of course, if we had at the time immediately the scare occurred-I say * scare,' but I do not mean ' scare ' in a discreditable sense at all-but, when the fear occurred, if we had immediately appointed, on all lines of communication betwen Canada and the United States, a doctor to watch for evidences of the disease, this vote would have had to have been two or three times greater than it is, and it would have involved an unnecessary expenditure if we were to adopt such a system. We have tried by all means possible to keep down this expenditure. I know that the director general of public health has kept as close a watch as possible and with my full approval and under my direction he has always tried to dispense with the services of these officers just as soon as the danger ceased to exist. I can assure the hon. gentleman that has been the instruction given, and I believe it has been most fully carried out by the director general of public health.


James Clancy: Well, every member in this House knows that the inspector general is often helpless against the pressure brought by members and friends of the government.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: No.
Mr. CLANCY'. The minister knows very well that is the case, and he need not try

to deny it. It is the tendency under the system of our government, and every one knows that it is the case. The very statement of the minister himself shows that it is necessary that we should have this information.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I will give all the information.


James Clancy: And the item will stand until we get that information ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I will let it stand if you wish.


James Clancy: I assume there is some correspondence between the federal government and the provincial governments on this matter, and I think we ought to be in possession of that.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: That correspondence would be very voluminous.


James Clancy: It is very important.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: The hon. gentleman had better move for a return and I will bring it down.


James Clancy: The minister cannot get this item passed without giving this information.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: If I am to rend all the correspondence between the director general of public health and the local authorities on this matter, it will take the House several days to listen to me.


James Clancy: If the minister places the correspondence at our disposal he will have the assistance of this side of the House.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I will have to get copies made.


James Clancy: The minister has a staff of officers, and the difficulty of getting copies is not insuperable.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Has there been correspondence with the provincial authorities of Quebec ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Yes.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: The minister told us that we spent $75,000 last year in connection with this service, but as a matter of fact we spent $20,000 more.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: That was the figure supplied me by the acting deputy minister, and I took it to be correct.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: There was a mistake made.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I will find out where the discrepancy is.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: If the minister does that he will do something which is less necessary than what I want him to do. During that |
year we were threatened with small-pox, because in the expenditure of $94,000 there is included the cost of vaccine and patrolling and other items which indicate that we feared an invasion of the disease. The minister tells us that this year we are spending not only that amount and $15,000 more, but also a great deal more than that. In what particulars have that increased expenditure been made. Now, the question put by the hon. gentleman for Toronto (Mr. Osier) is very pertinent. In the province of Quebec when we are threatened with an invasion of small-pox, we attend to it ourselves, a fact which is borne out by the statement of the minister that although there is smallpox in the New England states, he has not been asked to take precautions in regard to the frontier of Quebec, and he has not done so. The frontier of Quebec is guarded, and I assume it is done by the local authorities. But the minister has guarded the frontier of other provinces. This very fact shows that the correspondence with the provincial authorities is necessary. I want to know if the department follows one rule in oue province and another rule in another province.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: No.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Then there must be some fixed rule in the department, and we have a right to know what it is before we vote this increased expenditure of $30,000.


Andrew B. Ingram: I venture to say that the minister cannot tell me how many cases of small-pox have occurred on the frontier during the past month, because so far as I can see from the report of the director general of public health, there is very little reference to that matter. It is not the duty of the department to tell us where the small-pox is located along the frontier. I halve here the Public Health Report of the United States, published according to Act of Congress, and this report shows at a glance the number of cases of small-pox in the frontier states and the date of each case. In Minnesota, for instance, there are 2,676 cases and 12 deaths; in North Dakota, 183 cases and 1 death, and so on. That is a very satisfactory report, and it shows that the authorities in the United States are alive to this important matter, and place before the public the very information which we have tried to get from the minister this evening. If it does cost' the people of the United States money they have something to show for it; but so far as I can find from the report of our department, there is nothing to justify the expenditure that we are making.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: The information contained in that report issued by the United States authorities, is obtained from the state authorities. We have not done that.


Andrew B. Ingram: Why not ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: We have not attempted to do it. That information is published in the reports issued by our provincial authorities, who have charge of such matters within each province. We are only supposed to deal with the importation of the disease across the frontier, and in our report you will find the number of cases that our quarantine officers have dealt with.


William Humphrey Bennett: I understand the minister to say that in the appointment of these doctors in the Algoma district, he acted on the representations of the member for Algoma (Mr. Dyment).


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Speaking from memory, 1 think so.


William Humphrey Bennett: I think so too, and I think it is rather creditable to the hon. gentleman who represents that district, that he seems to have passed the word to his medical friends-for I assume they are his medical friends-that they had better start at this calling on a certain date; because it is a very odd coincidence that Dr. Baxter of Thessalon, started on his duties on July 1st, and ended them on the 31st of October; that Dr. Hamilton, of Fort William, started on the same date and ended on the same date; that Dr. Gibson, of Sault Ste. Marie, also started on the same date, and ended on the same date. It seems that the word was spread about that these gentlemen might give their services to the government at the very fair salary of ?100 a month. I find also that Dr. Aylesworth, of Colling-wood, started on the 1st of July, and ended on the 31st of October. It is absurd to argue that they were all on the look-out for vessels, because Dr. Parker, of Bruce Mines, started on the 5tli of March, long before navigation opened. I would ask the hon. minister specially to bring down the correspondence which relates to the appointment of these medical gentlemen in the district of Algoma at the points which I have referred to.


Mr. STEPHENS.: I may state for the information of the committee in regard to the health officer at Rondeau, that in some winters the boats run all winter, and in others they only run to the 1st of January. This year they stopped running in Decern-ber, and of course the officer quit work when the boats stopped running.


James Clancy: Did the hon. gentleman recommend the appointment, and was it solely upon his recommendation that Dr McCullough was appointed at that port V Mr. STEPHENS. I did not recommend the appointment at all. I think the appointment was recommended by the Ontario Health Department-by Dr. Bryce.


James Clancy: I think Dr. Bryce has quite as much zeal in a party sense as the hon. gentleman himself.


Andrew B. Ingram: 


George Stephens: I have no doubt it was a good appointment, because I understand that he found men who actually had smallpox, and sent them back to Cleveland. On the whole, it strikes me that it would be very hard for any minister to do what the opposition recommends. One man gets up and complains that he is spending altogether too much money, while others recommend that more money should be spent.


James Clancy: I had no iutention of referring to the appointment, which I believe was made on the recommendation of the hon. member for Kent. I prefer to discuss the question on its merits. So far as 1 can learn, there was not a case of small-pox in that quarter ; but I ask the hon. member for West Lambton (Mr. Johnston), who represents a constituency where people may come across at all times, whether it was not reported on good authority that there were a good many cases of smallpox in Marine City on the River St. Clair. That lion, gentleman, I will say it to his credit, did not load physicians on the public service, although he is a physician himself. My hon. friend from Kent knows perfectly well that the object was simply to take care of Dr. McCullough. I would have preferred to be spared making any reference to the appointment, for which there is no defence whatever. If Dr. Bryce made the recommendation, he had better turn his attention to the frontier along the River St. Clair or to Windsor, which escaped his vigilant eye.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: The hon. gentleman has spoken of Rondeau.
I may say that boats run direct to that point from Cleveland, which was one of the places most infested with small-pox. In regard to what the hon. member for Simcoe (Mr. Bennett) has said, there is a very simple explanation. The fear of small-pox existed in the month of June, and there was a very general demand for the immediate appointment of health officers. These appointments all commenced about the 1st of July, because that was when the fear arose and the demand was made, and they ceased on the same date, because that was the date when navigation on the lakes ceased.


George Stephens: The hon. me'mber for Both well (Mr. Clancy) tries to make out that the appointment of an officer at Rondeau was all my doing. I say openly and above board that I never recommended it.


James Clancy: I am glad the hon. gentleman repudiates it.


George Stephens: I did not know the government were going to place an officer there until I was told so by the department here. The hon. gentleman knows that Rondeau is seven or eight miles from any town or any medical man. It is far different in that respect from Windsor, where

there are many doctors, sflid also a medical health officer, wTio could prevent any person with small-pox from coming into the country. At Rondeau boats come from Cleveland every day, and on some days there are two or three boats. As soon as the boats start again, if the department does not appoint a man there, I will ask it to do so, because I think it is really necessary.


Samuel Hughes: Does the minister keep himself posted as to the prevalence of small-pox in the large centres along the boarder V
The ailNISTEIt OF AGRICULTURE. The director general of public health does. 1 do not.
air. HUGHES (Victoria). The minister is the Minister of Public Health. There is no need of quibbling.
The ailNISTER OF AGRICULTURE. There is no intention of quibbling.
air. HUGHES (Victoria). What are the steps which the minister takes ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: The director general of public health receives the reports of the local health officers, as I have already stated to the committee.
air. INGRAai. Is there a health officer at Port Stanley, from which a boat runs to Ashtabula, Ohio V
The ailNISTER OF AGRICULTURE. 1 cannot say whether there was an officer there during the summer or not. There is not now.
air. BENNETT. I think the minister's reason why the services of these men in Algoma were discontinued in October is a very poor one, because I am informed that small-pox assumes a worse phase as the weather gets colder, and instead of the boats stopping running on the 31st of October, they often do not stop until November, and sometimes December. I am afraid that the fact is that the pressure on the minister was too great for him to resist, and that after a time the appointments were swelling so much that the gentleman in charge of the department called a halt. However, when the reports come down, they will show who recommended the appointments of all these doctors in Algoma. It appears they were appointed for very different reasons. At some places, where a large vessel called, they were appointed on account of the vessel; in other cases, where there was superior zeal on the part of the doctor in applying for the position and on the part of the member in recommending him, the doctors started their duties before navigation opened at all. When the minister brings down the papers, I hope he will bring down those respecting
the appointment of Dr. Aylesworth, of Collingwood.


Samuel Hughes: Did these officers give certificates or clean bills of health to persons coming on the trains ? What charge per head was made for the certificate ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: There was no charge and no certificate.


Samuel Hughes: Certainly the doctors issued certificates and there was quite a rivalry among them. In some instances, in the absence of the doctor, their wives made out the certificates. The usual charge was a dollar, but finally they got it down to 50 cents each.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I have no knowledge of it.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I think it would be necessary for us to see the reports of these medical appointees.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: There are monthly reports from each of them.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I understand the minister to say that I was complaining that the expenditure was too heavy. What I complained of was that we were either spending too little or too much. We are spending too much for a very imperfect service and too little for a very good service. And while we have been spending a very considerable sum, our expenditure is without much effect, because the disease has been imported over and over again from the other side notwithstanding all our precautions. I cannot understand liow so large a number of cases could come in if ordinary precautions had been taken. I do not complain of the expense, but of the laxity of the regulations and the provisions taken to prevent the importation of the disease.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Are the services of these local medical officers dispensed with on the recommendation of the chief medical officer ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Yes, he reports to me and I authorize him to dispense with their services.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Have any steps been taken by the officers of the department to secure the co-operation of the provincial authorities ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: The work of each is entirely separate. We have not asked them to do our work, nor have they asked us to do theirs.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Is there any correspondence in the department between the two ? It would be very advisable for the Dominion to secure the co-operation of the local authorities in stamping out this disease. In some sections of Ontario it has made considerable ravages, and our urban muni-

cipalities have had to expend large sums. It is utterly impossible to think that if there were co-operation between the Dominion and the provincial officers more satisfactory results would not be obtained. It is unfortunate, notwithstanding the appointments of so many officers along the frontier in Ontario, that such a vast number of cases have been allowed to pass.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: The hon. gentleman is exaggerating. We have no such information.


Edward Frederick Clarke: The newspapers say so, and they got their information from the medical authorities very largely, and their reports have been found substantially correct. At any rate, I think that better results would be obtained if the Dominion officers would co-operate with the provincial officers.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Is there any correspondence between the Quebec Board of Health and the hon. gentleman's department on this subject V


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: There are one or two letters and I will bring them down.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Is there any correspondence with the Public Health Department of Ontario ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I will bring that down also.
Mr. LaRIVIERE. I would ask for the same privilege for Manitoba. I understand that the disease spread considerably in Manitoba on account of the laxity of the service at the boundary in allowing cases from Dakota to cross the line. We have had several cases traced to Dakota.
The MINISTER OF' AGRICULTURE. My inspector denies point blank that anything of the kind occurred.
Mr. LaRIVIERE. There is a general complaint in Manitoba that cases of small-pox were allowed to cross the border. The fact is notorious.
Item allowed to stand.
Tracadie Lazeretto, $5,500.


James Clancy: Has the vote been exhausted ? [DOT]


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: It is exhausted each year. It is a fixed sum paid the Sisters of Charity to manage the hospital and to pay the doctor's salary, and other expenses.
Public Works Health Act, $4,000.


James Clancy: Has the hon. gentleman appointed a travelling physician, as he stated he intended to do ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I appointed a travelling inspector, but not a physician. His name is C. A. L. Fisher, of Montreal.


Edward Frederick Clarke: 


Frederick Debartzch Monk: What are his particular qualifications and what are the duties ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: The duties are to inspect the operations of contractors and managers of public works, to see that they carry out the provisions of the Health Act.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Is not that more the work of a physician ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Not necessarily.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Has it no reference to hygiene V


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: It has reference to carrying out the provisions of the Act.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: What was Mr. Fisher's occupation up to the time of his appointment ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I think he was a real estate agent in Montreal.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: It would seem much more proper to .have appointed a medical man. To look after the sanitary condition of a public work would require the judgment and knowledge of a physician. In many cases an ordinary person could judge, but in others the knowledge of the physician would be necessary.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: What Is Mr. Fisher's salary?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: It is $1,800.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Is he paid expenses ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Travelling expenses, not living expenses.


Andrew B. Ingram: I suppose this has to do with public works under the authority of the Dominion, not those under provincial authority ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Quite so.


Andrew B. Ingram: Has this officer furnished a report ?
The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE, yes, it forms an appendix to the report of the department.


Andrew B. Ingram: Has he visited the public works during the year ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Yes, those coming under the Act.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: All public works carried on by the government would be under the Act ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Yes, or those under contract with the Dominion or on which Dominion money is being spent.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: If lie finds an unsanitary condition of affairs, would lie be competent to deal with it, not being a medical man ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Under the Act, tlie manager of the work or the contractor or his representative is obliged to have a physician on the work or within reach. The duty of the inspector is to see that these provisions are carried out. He is not required to act as a physician himself. It was thought that we could get a layman to carry out the provisions of the Act as efficiently and at less expense than by employing a physician. The Act calls for proper accommodation in the way of hospitals, proper medical attendance for employees and so on. The inspector sees to it that these provisions are carried out.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: If the inspector found something in an unsanitary condition and referred it to the company's physician, lie would refer it to one whose interest is with the contractors. The contractor will not wish to undertake the expense necessary to change the conditions. How are they to agree upon what is a proper sanitary condition V


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: There is a sanitary board for each public work under the regulations. This board consists of the physician, the manager, or contractor, or his representative, and the inspector. If there were a serious dispute, the director general of public healtli would be called in. This work is done under his supervision and control, and he would be the professional referee.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I apprehend that the inspector would have but little influence, having against him two men whose interests are those of the contractor.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: He can always refer to the director general of public health.	#	.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: How many times is it necessary for the inspector to visit these public works ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Taking up his duties last year, he visited every public work, and he will probably visit them again during the coming year. We get reports from these local boards.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I fear that these reports will not be as valuable as if coming from the inspector, because of the fact that they are from the representative of the contractor, and it would be their object to defend themselves as far as possible.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Of course, there is a penalty upon the contractor if lie does not carry out the regulations, and it is the inspector's duty to see that the law in this respect is lived up to. Of course we cannot have an inspector on
these works all the time, but we can have him go whenever possible. Mr. Fisher went through to the Pacific Coast last year and visited every work.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: It seems to me that if the work is to be effective it will be necessary for the inspector to visit each public work from time to time. Premises might be in a sanitary condition to-day then, a month hence, be in the very opposite condition. The object is a good one if properly carried out, it would no doubt have beneficial results for the labouring men who have but little influence in controlling the situation in these matters. But, to carry out the Act effectively it seems to me, an intelligent medical man should be appointed, and he should visit the works every two or three months.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I think it a great pity that the government, when inaugurating the work of this Act, did not choose as inspector a physician. From what I know, of Mr. Fisher, I believe that he is an old man. I have known him as a real estate agent, I believe, and, I think he is one of the principle organizers of the Liberal party.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: He was secretary of the Liberal Club.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I think the department made a great mistake in not choosing a young physician. One could have been employed at far less expense than this. The government could have chosen a young physician, one at the beginning of his career, and thus have given him encouragement, which is always welcome at such a time. I cannot understand why we have an expenditure last year of $606 and, with a salary of $1,800 which is far too great for the nominee, we have now an expenditure of $4,000. Is there mention in Mr. Fisher's report of travelling expenses ? There must have been considerable to bring the item up to such a figure.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: When this question came up on the first item for this purpose, it was distinctly stated in the House that the appointment should not be given to a physician. The work is being done largely in the interests of the workingmen employed on these public works, and it was thought that there would be far more confidence in the operation of the Act if a professional man were not appointed. So far as the expenditure is concerned, Mr. Fisher's term of office did not commence until quite late in the year, the expenditure for travelling will be considerable, as he has to travel nearly all the time.
Winnipeg and St. Boniface hospitals $4,000.


Mr. McCREARY.: Last year when this item came before the House, I asked that it be increased, but I find that it still remains at the same figure. I think it is well to draw the attention of the Minister of Agriculture and of the committee to the fact

that these two hospitals are practically doing Dominion work. Most of the members of this committee are aware that we have coming into that province now pretty nearly 50,000 people per year, coming from Europe, from Great Britain and from the United States. We have two hospitals there, the St. Boniface hospital, under the supervision of the Roman Catholic Church, but which is by no means confined to members of that church, it is a general hospital in every particular; then we have the general hospital at Winnipeg. But I want to say that nearly one-tliird of all the patients treated in these, hospitals are immigrants who have arrived either at once or within a year. Now, is it fair to the people of the west that they should be asked to support these hospitals when the balance of Canada gets the benefit ? I think this item should be increased to at least $10,000, and should be distributed equally between the two hospitals. It should be charged, if that can be done, to the Department of Agriculture, if not, then to the Interior Department. I know when the Minister of the Interior comes to lay his estimates before this House, and when the Minister of Finance comes to make his budget speech, they will both boast of the great progress the west is making, of the large number of immigrants coming in; they will both talk in loud tones of the large quantity of wheat being exported from that country, and undoubtedly will talk loudly of the great progress of the west. If that is so, why should they not contribute at least something to help the sick of those people who come to the west to create that wealth ? I think my hon. friend from Provenclier (Mr. LaRiviere) will back me up in saying that the amount voted for these two hospitals is too small, that the Dominion govern-men should pay at least $10,000, to be divided equally between them.
Mr. LaRIVIERB. We had in the estimates in former years the sum of $10,000 for these two institutions. I am sorry it has been decreased, not so much by the present government as by the former one. At any rate, tlie amount is quite inadequate, as my hon. friend from Selkirk (Mr. McCreary) said; because these two institutions are performing the duty of taking care of sick people not only for Manitoba but for the Northwest. When immigrants arriving at Winnipeg take sick, as they frequently do after the long sea voyage, they are sent to either one of these two institutions regardless of creed or nationality. They are both general hospitals. In fact, I may say that the St. Boniface hospital, though known to be a Roman Catholic institution, cares for more Protestants than Roman Catholics. I agree with my hon. friend who has just spoken, and join him in begging the government to reconsider their recommendation and to increase the amount which is offered to these two institutions.
Mr. McCreary.
Some resolutions reported.
On motion of the Minister of Finance, House adjourned at 11.30 p.m.

Wednesday, February 26th, 1902.