1902-03-13

PUBLIC ACCOUNTS COMMITTEE.

Mr.  D. C.@: FRASER (Guysborough) presented the Third Report of the Select Standing Committee on Public Accounts.


Mr. BELL.: I give notice that to-morrow I will move that the report of the Committee on Public Accounts be recommitted with instructions that P. S. Archibald be summoned to give evidence before this committee.



FIRST READINGS.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 43) respecting the Vancouver, Victoria and Eastern Railway and Navigation Company.-Mr. Maxwell.
Bill (No. 44) respecting the Tilsonburg, Lake Erie and Pacific Railway Company.- Mr. McCarthy.
Bill (No. 45) to amend the Companies Act.- Mr. Thompson.


Mr. BORDEN (Halifax) asked :: 1.	What was the total expenditure for repairs t ccasioned by washout on the Tantramar Marsh in the spring of 1901 ?
2.	On how many occasions was the Inter -ec lonial Railway track washed out during the spring and summer ?
3.	What mi-a ns were eventually found effective to prevent any further washout ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS (Hon. A. G. Blair) :: 1.	Two thousand and thirty dollars and thirty-two cents, ($2,030.32).
2.	On three occasions, once in April, once in May and once in June.
3.	A dyke was built two thousand feet long, two and a half feet above the lowest point of rail level parallel to and eight feet from the centre of the track.



LOCOMOTIVES FOR CANADIAN GOVERNMENT RAILWAYS.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. CLARKE-by Mr. Kemp-asked :
1.	How many locomotive engines have been ordered for the Canadian government railways since the 1st July, 1896 ?
2.	How many have been delivered up to date?
3.	Have any locomotive engines belonging to the Canadian government railways been leased, rented or loaned to any other railway corporation or company ? If so, how many have been lotsed, loaned or rented ; to what company or companies, and on what terms, and for what length of time ?
4.	At what dates were the engines loaned, leased or rented ?
The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS (Hon. A. G. Blair) :: -MARCH 13, 1902
1.	One hundred and twenty-one locomotive engines have been ordered for the Canadian government railways since the 1st July, 189G.
2.	Eighty-four have been delivered up to 1st March, 1902.
3.	Eight locomotive engines were hired to the Canadian Pacific Railway at $8 per day. No stated length of time.
4.	Four on February 15th, 1902; 2 on February 25tli, 1902; 1 on February 26tli, 1902; 1 on February 28th, 1902.



RAILWAY CHARGES FOR TRANSPORTATION OF FRUIT.

Mr. LENNOX asked :: 
The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS (Hon. A. G. Blair) :: 1.	Yes, a resolution of the Georgian Bay Fruit-growers' Association has been received calling attention to alleged excessive charges by railway companies for transportation of agricultural produce generally and on fruit in particular, and urging the appointment of a transportation commission to remedy this grievance.
2.	The intention is to introduce a Bill dealing with the regulation and control of railway freight rates at the present session.
. FENIAN RAID MEDALS.


Mr. HUGHES (Victoria) asked :: Is it the intention to issue Fenian Raid medals to those volunteers who, in 1S69, in anticipation of the Fenian Raid, were ordered by the Canadian government to man the gunboat ' Prince Alfred,' and patrol the waters of Lake Huron ?


The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE (Hon. F. W. Borden).: General order 63 of July, 1898, which prescribes the conditions under which these medals may be granted, does not authorize their being issued for the year 1869, but I will cause further inquiry to be made to ascertain whether the order should be amended in the direction indicated in the question.



CANADIAN TEMPERANCE ACT.

Mr. EMMERSON asked :: Has the government taken any action upon the petition or memorial of the Maritime Baptist Convention, through the president and secretary of such convention, praying for certain amendments to the Canada Temperance Act ? And if not is it the intention of the government to take any action with respect to the matter during the present session of parliament ?


The PRIME MINISTER (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier).: I believe that such a petition has been received from the Maritime Baptist Convention and that two similar petitions have also been received. The matter is now receiving the consideration of the government.



INTERPRETATION ACT AMENDMENT.

[Stage Direction]
On the order being called for :
The second reading of Bill No. 8 to amend the Interpretation Act.-Mr. Monk.
Mr. MONK.: Mr. Speaker, I understood that we would wait until there were more members from the province of Quebec present as this Bill interests the province of Quebec particularly.


The PRIME MINISTER.: Stands.
Order allowed to stand.



MEDICAL COUNCIL IN CANADA.

Mr.  T. G.@: RODDICK (Montreal, St. Antoine) moved second reading of Bill (No. 11) to provide for the establishment of a medical council in Canada. He said : Mr. Speaker, in moving the second reading of the Bill for the establishment of a medical council in Canada it is my desire to be brief, because I had an opportunity last session in this House of explaining this measure very fully, and besides, I understand several hon. gentlemen wish to speak upon this subject. My main object for framing this Bill for the establishment of a medical council in Canada is for the purpose of establishing a qualification for medical men which would be acknowledged and accepted in all parts of the Dominion of Canada. As you are doubtless aware, Sir, we have at present no fewer than eight examining and licensing medical bodies in this country. Some of these are doubtless doing good work and keeping up, or at any rate, assisting in keeping up the standard of medical education, but their usefulness is limited to the territories over which they have special control. Barriers have been erected, as you are doubtless also aware, Sir, around these eight territories so that it is practically impossible for a medical man, for a graduate in medicine, to receive a qualification to practice in more than one of the provinces. The barriers are so marked, so strong and so high, that very few indeed have the opportunity of representing the profession of medicine in more than one province. The frontiers are so closely watched, Sir, that we constantly hear of medical men being fined, and in cases where this fine has not been paid, imprisonment has been threatened for crossing a boundary river, or an imaginary line between two provinces, in order to serve and probably to save the lives of citizens of this Canada of ours. Therefore, Sir,
I contend that there is reason for interference on the part of this parliament. I be-

lieve. Sir. that section 91 of the British North America Act can well be evoked by this parliament in meeting cases such as I have mentioned. Section 91, which refers to the peace, order and good government of Canada, I contend, might well be brought into operation by this parliament in cases such as those I have cited. Such a state of affairs exists in no other country probably in the world. Even between the countries of France and Germany, I am credibly informed, a neutral territory of 15 miles has been marked out over which medical men may travel in the discharge of their professional duties so as to be able to assist the sick and wounded of either nationality. Therefore, I think it is time something was done in Canada in order to remedy so serious an evil. It may be asked why these unfortuuate men who have been fined do not take steps to procure licenses in the neighbouring provinces to which they are obliged constantly to travel. The reason is that it may be absolutely impossible for a man to receive a license in more than one province. If he has begun the study of medicine in one province and :f he matriculates in that province, he never can receive a license to practice in any of the other provinces. For instance, if an Ontario graduate, having changed his mind as to his domicile, having passed his examinations, wishes to practice In the province of Quebec, he cannot do so simply for the reason that the medical board of the province of Quebec insist that he shall begin by passing the matriculation examination of that board. Some of the ablest men in our profession to-day have been shut out from practising in Quebec and in Ontario where they might be very useful in hospital and professorial work.
Another object which I had in framing this Bill and in bringing it before the House, was to obtain reciprocity with Great Britain. That, Sir, can be done so soon as we have a central examining board for the Dominion. In 1886 the British Medical Gouncil enacted that:
On and after the prescribed day where a person shows to the satisfaction of the registrar of the general council that he holds some recognized colonial medical diploma or diplomas (as hereinafter defined), granted to him in a British possession to which this Act applies, and that he is of good character, and that ho is by law entitled to practice medicine, surgery and midwifery in such British possession, he shall, on application to the said registrar, and on payment of such fee (not exceeding five pounds), as the general council may from time to time determine, be entitled, without examination in the United Kingdom, to be registered as a colonial practitioner in the medical register.
The deflu ition states :
The expression 'British possession' means any part of Her Majesty's dominions exclusive r.f the United Kingdom, hut inclusive of the Isle


Mr. RODDICK.: of Man and the Channel Islands; and where parts of such dominions are under both a central and a local legislature, all parts under one central legislature are for the purposes of this definition deemed to be one British possession.
That means that so long as the provinces are separate parts of the confederation, we cannot register in Great Britain as provinces. The British Medical Council will not undertake to look after the education of the various provinces, but I do state positively that so soon as we have a central examining board in the Dominion of Canada, the British Medical Council will at once accept the licenses from that board and allow our men to register immediately in Great Britain, or in any part of the empire over which the British Medical Council has control. That is a very important matter. It means that we would have open to our young Canadian medical men, the army and navy of Great Britain, as well as colonial appointments, many of which are very lucrative, especially in the Bast and West Indias. It will also open to Canadian medical men appointments under the British Board of Trade, so that ships surgeons may be appointed directly from this side whereas now bur young men have to go to England to first receive a license In one of the colleges of Great Britain before they can take a steamer across the Atlantic. 1 have here some letters from the management of the Elder-Dempser line which bears on the subject, and which I will ask the permission of the House to read :
Liverpool, February 27th, 1901. Messrs. Elder, Dempster & Go.,
Montreal, Que.
Dear Sirs,-We are most anxious Eo have Canadian doctors on board our Canadian steamers, and we want you to arrange it so. If wo have an English doctor on any of the ships, we want you to put a Canadian doctor alongside him to come to this end so that he may take charge of the ship from here.
Yours truly,
(Sgd.) ELDER, DEMPSTER & CO. Liverpool, February 22nd, 1901. Messrs. Elder, Dempster & Co.,
Montreal, Que.
Dear Sirsi,-Canadian doctors. From what we have seen of these gentlemen we have the highest respect for them, and we are most anxious they should become practitioners on board our West African and West Indian steamers. Would see no reason whatever why Canadian doctors should not be allowed to sail with their Canadian diplomas on equal terms with English doctors. What is the next step to take? You will see we have written to the High Commissioner here and he says the only thing to do is to get the doctors to come to England fer examination. What does this mean ?
Yours truly,
(Sgd.) ELDER, DEMPSTER & CO.
Mr. Colmer, secretary to the High Commissioner, writing to Mr. Jones, of the Elder-Dempster line says :

February 21st, 1901.
Alfred Jones, Esq.,
African House,
6 Water Street,
Liverpool.
Dear Mr. Jones,-I duly received your letter of the 13th inst., in reference to the question of Candian medical men being registered m this country.	.
The difficulty is, as your medical superiu-tendant points out, that while the Medical Act of 1886 leaves the door open to Canadians, Providing the medical authorities in the Dominion offer similar facilities, the provisions of the statute have not yet been applied to the Do-
The only course for a Canadian doctor, therefore is to come to England for an examination whfch, if passed, will entitle him to registration. I return the inclosures to your letter herewUh'	x am, dear Mr. Jones,
Yours faithfully,
(Sgd.) J. E. COLMER.
Secretary.
This correspondence indicates how unfairly our medical men are treated, but we have' the remedy in our own hands, and that remedy is simply the establishment of a Dominion medical council and a central examining board in order to meet the requirements of the British Medical Act of lgg6. we have had numerous opportunities of testing the disabilities under which Canadian medical men labour during tins present South African war, and we have constantly heard of how medical men attached to Canadian battalions were not allowed to attend Tommy Atkins. U was in fact thought, that they were good enough to attend Canadian soldiers, but not good enough to look after English soldiers. That is a positive fact. Several of those gentlemen who have returned from South Africa have cited instances to me, and I have correspondence bearing on it wliicli I could produce if time would permit, showing that a great injustice had been doue to our Canadian medical men, and done probably to force our hand. Knowing as 1 do several members of the British Medical Council, I am satisfied that nothing would give them greater pleasure than that we should arrange in Canada here a scheme which would meet them half 'way. Other objects of this Bill of a minor character might be referred to, but X shall not touch on them at this particular time.
Now, Mr. Speaker, in arranging a scheme of this kind, there is no intention; nor is there any necessity for any interference with the autonomy of the provinces. I am aware that the fear of such interference is the great objection which has been offered to this measure of mine. It is not intended to do away with the provincial boards in any way. They will still continue to exist as they have existed hitherto. They must exist for certain purposes. They must exist for the purpose of taxation and discipline. With the provincial boards will be left the question of taxation and all matters relating to the discipline of the profession. They will not be disturbed. Their autonomy will not be interfered with in the least degree. I would be the last man in this House to seek in any way to override the provisions of the British North America Act. I have the greatest respect for that piece of constitutional machinery, and I believe that any interference with the autonomy of the provinces is unnecessary and uncalled for in any way. Where the provinces wish to continue an examining board, as now, they can do so. I have no doubt at all that the larger provinces, that is Ontario, Quebec, Nova Scotia and Manitoba at any rate, will each continue to have an examining board for the purpose of examining and licensing men who wish to practice in .i particular province only. For instance, a man who goes up before the Ontario Medical Council, when this Act comes into force, p8 X hope it will, may be examined by them as he Is now. They will undertake to examine him and give him a license to piac-tice in the province of Ontario only, and he cannot go outside of the limits of that province on that certificate. It will be the same in the province of Quebec. I think that for a great many years to come the system in Quebec will continue as it is now, but I have it on good authority that the smaller provinces will probably discontinue the examining of candidates who come before them. I state without hesitation, and without any detriment to the smaller provinces, that in the light of the present progress in medicine-judging from the rapidity with which some of the subjects^ at any rate are progressing-it is impossible for a man who is not a teacher connected with a university to keep up sufficiently well to be able to examine in these subjects. Among the provinces there are four which have no university-British Columbia New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island, and the North-west Territories; as they have as yet no teaching body, their men are not able to keep up sufficiently well to examine. On that account, and for the reason I have given, there is no necessity. I repeat again, for disturbing the provincial board and its present methods ; so it will continue as before.
This Bill, then, is a purely permissive Bill. It Is necessary, in order that it may come into operation, to have the consent and co-operation of all the provinces. It is necessary for the medical board in each province to go before the local legislature and ask for a short clause to be tacked on to the present Act. Every province has its medical Act. and it will be simply necessary to add to that Act something like the following-though it need not be in exactly the same words :-
When there shall have been established under the authority of the parliament of Canada a

111G
medical register for Canada, under the control of a medical council for Canada, then, notwithstanding anything contained in any of the Acts hereby amended, any person duly registered in the said register as a medical and surgical practitioner, or as a student of medicine and surgery, shall, without any further or other evidence of qualification, be entitled to be registered in the medical register of this province as a duly qualified medical and surgical practitioner, or as a duly qualified student of medicine and surgery, as the case may be, upon production of a certificate under the hand of the registrar of the said medical council for Canada, certifying that such person m so duly registered upon satisfactory proof of the identity of such person, and upon payment of such fee as may be prescribed by the medical council of the province in that behalf.
A short amendment of that kind, tacked on to the medical Act of each province, is all that is required to bring into effect the measure I am advocating.
Now, as to the scheme itself. How is this Act to be put into operation ? It is necessary, first, to have a medical council, which may be called the Dominion Medical Council or the Medical Council of Canada, which I think would probably be a better term. The composition of this council has been a great puzzle to those of us who have had to do with the framing of this Bill. It has occasioned me personally a great deal of thought and consideration. We have tried two or three schemes, which have all given more or less satisfaction, but which have not quite met the requirements. When I addressed this House a year ago, I stated that the plan which seemed to satisfy all the provinces was that three members of the council should be taken from each province -one appointed by the Governor General in Council, one elected by each provincial medical council, and, the president of each provincial medical council. That, we found, gave dissatisfaction in the larger provinces. The province of Ontario, with its 2,300 odd doctors, said, ' It is unfair to us to give us the same number only as the little province of Prince Edward Island with something like 96 doctors.' Pressure was brought to bear so strongly that I looked for another scheme, and I think I have found one which will give general satisfaction. It is, that) for the first 100 or fraction of 100 practitioners in each province, there shall be one member. That will let in Prince Edward Island, and will also let in the xukon when it has a central board established. For the second 100 or fraction thereof over 50, there will be one member ; and for every COO above that, one member. That piinciple can be continued ad infinitum. Then there will be appointed members-one appointed by the Governor in Council from each province. There will also be university representatives, each university having a teaching medical faculty being entitled to send one, and there will be three homeopathic representatives from the entire Dominion.


Thomas George Roddick: 
Mr. Peter  Macdonald. East Huron@Deputy Speaker: I agree very largely with the promoter as to the value of this Bill to the medical profession. It is a Bill that is agreed to. I believe, by the six thou: sand medical men of the Dominion of Can-

ada almost unanimously. We liave been, ever since confederation, under disabilities in tbe various provinces, on account of the education of medical men by tbe provinces. In my opinion, it was an error to place the education of medical men under the provinces ; but with this I do not intend to deal. The education that is necessary for a medical man qualifies one that has received that education to practice his profession in any part of the world. We are not exactly in the same position as lawyers in this respect. Law differs in different countries, and even in different provinces ; and thus a person who may be qualified to practice law in one country or one province may not have the education to fit him for the practice of it in another. But, our profession being based upon the same principles, and our practice being the same, one who has received the necessary education is fitted to practice it anywhere. We are placed under disabilities in regard to our rights in the respective provinces of this Dominion. When we receive our diploma and license, these only permit us to practice in the province in which we obtain them. And if a young man-or an old man, for that matter-wishes to remove from one province to another, he is met with the Jaws of the other province, which exact from him, in most cases, an examination and the payment of a large fee. We believe that that is contrary to the spirit of the constitution of Canada ; we believe that when we spend four or five years of the best period of our lives, and pay also a little fortune, in order to acquire a profession, the license or diploma obtained should carry us a little further than the locality in which we live. Let me point out to you the difficulties which we experience at times. A large number of our young men go to our new western country to assist one another in developing that country. Among others is a certain proportion of young medical men who go. But as soon as they go they find themselves forbidden to practice until after they have complied with the regulations of the province in which they wish to settle. For instance, if a young man has received his diploma, let us say, from one of the Toronto medical schools, which require four years of actual study, and lias also passed his examination before the medical council of Ontario-a very high examination-yet, when he enters the province of British Columbia, where they have no teaching body, and where they are willing to accept a three years course, he must pass an examination and pay a fee of $100. Now, we think that a hardship. Let me give you instances. There were two young men of my own town who graduated in medicine a few years ago. One of them was a graduate of Trinity, who was the winner of a silver medal. He passed his examination before the medical council in due course. He decided to go out to the new country to practice his profession, and help, with others to,develop that new coun-Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER.
try. He arrived in British Columbia a few days after the examination had been held. He could not go up for examination for six months. It was impossible for him to remain in British Columbia spending money and doing nothing for that length of time, so he concluded that it would be better for him to return to Ontario, which he did, and he is practising in Ontario to-day. Another young man in my town was thoroughly equipped in the medical department of Toronto University, having taken a high place in the examinations there. He passed the medical council's examination. He, like the other man, went to British Columbia. Being met with the same difficulty, he also decided that he could not wait for the examination, and, in any case, he had not $100 to pay his fee. This result was that he went to California and established himself there. He is practising in California to-day, and Canada has lost a very good citizen. In order to overcome these disabilities, Canadian medical practitioners wish to establish the Dominion Medical Council before which any person who wishes to practice in any of the provinces outside of the one in which he has taken his diploma may come and obtain a diploma which will give him the right to practice in any province of the Dominion. As the promoter of the Bill has very truly pointed out, when medical practitioners are living near the border line between provinces, they may be called in cases of emergencies to treat persons on the other side of the provincial line. And, medical men have actually been fined for going across the border to treat persons in cases of emergency. Such a case happened within a few miles of this very city of Ottawa. A medical man of the city of Ottawa, no matter how high his qualifications, cannot cross the interprovincial bridge at the Chaudiere to treat a person on the other side of the river. Now, such anomalies, I think, should not prevail in a country where we have such large views of nationality.
Then, again, we are hampered, as the doctor has pointed out, by our position in the British possessions. Medical men from Australia, and from its various divisions previous to the establishment of the Commonwealth, were permitted to register under the General Medical Act of Great Britain, and therefore could qualify themselves to occupy any position they might receive in the civil service, the navy, the militia, or the service of the East Indian Company ; in fact, any position in the gift of the British government, could be bestowed upon those gentlemen living in Australia, British India, the British West Indies, South Africa, and New Zealand. But the graduates from Canada were denied that privilege because they were not graduates of a British possession as defined in the British Medical Act. My hon. friend from Montreal made reference to this matter, but allow me to read the clause under which the graduates of other colonies register in Britain, and the one un-

der which the graduates of Canada wish, under this Bill, to register. This is the article in the Medical Act passed in 1896 by the British parliament, which relates to that matter :
On and after the prescribed day where a person shows to the satisfaction of the registrar of the General Council that he holds some recognized colonial medical diploma or diplomas (as hereinafter defined) granted to him in a British possession

Now, note the expression ' British possession.'

to which this Act applies, and that he is
of good character, and that he is by law entitled to practice medicine, surgery and midwifery in such British possessions, he shall, on application to the said registrar, and on payment of such fee not exceeding five pounds as the General Council may from time to time determine, be entitled, without examination in the United Kingdom, to be registered as a colonial practitioner in the medical register.
Now, that is the privilege extended by this Act to medical graduates in a British possession. But if we turn to section 17 of this Act, we see the definition of a British possession and by that definition Canadian graduates are shut out from the right to register under the British Medical Act. This is the definition in the clause that shuts us out :
The expression ' British possession ' means any part of Her Majesty's Dominions exclusive of the United Kingdom, but inclusive of the Isle of Man and the channel islands ; and where parts of such dominions are under both a central and a local legislature-
Notice, that is the position we occupy. -; all parts under one central legislature are for the purpose of this definition deemed to be one British possession.
Now, Canada is a British possession in the meaning of that expression, but Ontario, Quebec, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, any or all of them are not British possessions; and consequently, as we are graduates of one or other ol' the provinces, we cannot say that our diploma is from a British possession, and therefore we are excluded from being registered under the British General Medical Act, and are excluded consequently from all those courtesies and advantages which would otherwise come to us. Now, for these reasons the general profession in Canada is unanimous in asking the parliament of Canada to remove these disabilities so that our practitioners may have the same opportunities of obtaining these positions in Great Britain as have graduates from the other colonies of that great empire. If this Bill is passed and crystallized into law it will be accepted almost unanimously by every member of the profession. There is nothing in the Bill from the preamble down to the last clause which compromises the interests of any party inside or outside the profession; and therefore I think that parliament would act wisely and judiciously, 36
would act in the interest not only of the profession but of all those who call the profession to their assistance, by passing this law and enabling us to establish a Dominion Medical Council before which students and practitioners might come to receive a diploma from a British possession, and thus they would be eligible to advantages from which they are now excluded.
Then again, as was pointed out by my hon. friend from Montreal, this medical council is to be so composed as to be of great value as a consulting body to the government of Canada. The Governor in Council is to appoint one of its members from each province ; the members of the council from each province of the Dominion are to appoint one more ; then the universities which are engaged in teaching are to have the right of appointing one, and the medical profession will appoint the balance. So you see it is to be fully representative of the various classes of practitioners throughout the Dominion. It is representative of the Dominion; and because each province in the Dominion is to be represented on this council, therefore it will be representative of the provinces. When the advice of such a consulting body is required in regard to general health, epidemics or diseases, the government can call to their assistance these eminent men, who will be members of the council, and in this way the public at large will receive great advantage from the constitution of that body, a body the like of which does not now exist, representative of such large areas or of so many classes in all the provinces.
In view of all these facts, I am sure the House will agree, as I believe it is proposed to do, to submit this matter to a special committee, who will go over the various clauses of the Bill and see that each one is put into such a shape as not to affect prejudicially any class of the community. When the committee reports, and the Bill comes back to the House, and is submitted to a Committee of the Whole, any changes can be made which may be deemed necessary to make the Bill perfect and in the interest of the profession as well as of the community as a whole. I do not think, Mr. Speaker, it is necessary for me t'o say any more. I think the considerations I have placed before the House are sufficient to convince hon. members that some change of this kind is necessary, and in the interest of the great profession which has given so much time and so much skill, without fee or reward, to promote the health and prosperity of this country.


Mr. W. J. ROCHE (Marquette).: The Bill which is now engaging the attention of the House is one that meets with my hearty support, and one which I think will meet with the approbation of every hon. gentleman in this House, whether he is a member of the profession or not. The hon. gentleman who has introduced this Bill and who



lias judiciously, during the last two years, held it over from session to session in order to have it perfected, is deserving, in my opinion, of great credit for the expenditure of time, of labour and of trouble which he has made in educating the profession to take the very progressive step the Bill is intended to accomplish. The subject matter of the Bill is one of considerable delicacy, and requires a good deal of diplomacy in its proper handling in order to harmonize the varied interests. Our educational affairs being under the jurisdiction of the local legislatures, the members of the profession in the various provinces have been jealous of their rights and privileges. The colleges and universities, the degree-conferring institutions, have been anxious to safeguard their present privileges. The various provinces have local laws which practically debar members of the profession in other provinces from invading their field unless they comply with these local laws, which are in many instances onerous and difficult to comply with.
Now Ontario is justly proud of the high standard and excellence of its medical education. For a long time the profession of that province stood out against entering into any arrangement for a system of Dominion registration unless their particular standard and regulations, or similarly high ones, were adopted by the other provinces of the Dominion. On the other hand the other provinces of the Dominion had laws which they considered useful to themselves and which they considered equally applicable to their particular part of the Dominion and they also took the same ground. The colleges and other degree conferring institutions looked at first with suspicion upon this movement fearing that their vested rights might be tampered with. All these difficulties had to be met and overcome. It has required years of agitation and education un-t'l now all the varied interests are practically a unit in assisting to secure the passage of this Bill. Viewed from a selfish standpoint, we, the medical men in the west, arc not so anxious that this legislation should be crystallized into law as those from the east. In fact, in many respects, looking at it from a selfish standpoint, it will be a detriment to us, but I am glad to say that the medical men of the west are not animated by any sectional feeling, and that they will join in any movement for the good of the medical profession at large and for the good of the public at large. The profession in the west is not at the present time in a congested state, although in the Northwest Territories alone, according to the report presented by the hon. member for Montreal (Mr. Roddick), there have been more than one hundred practitioners who have gone into the North-west Territories during the last twelve months. That is a new country which is opening up and developing and population is flowing in so rapidly every year that we have not more medical men Mr. ROCHE (Marquette).
than the demand requires. However, in the east the supply more than equals the demand and new graduates must seek new fields in which to practise their profession and if they desire to practise under the British flag in the Dominion of Canada they must seek new homes for themselves on the prairies of the west. It is therefore of more importance to the practitioners of the east that this Bill should become law than it is to the practitioners of the west.
What an anomaly it is, as has been pointed out by both speakers who have preceded me, that a gentleman holding one of the best university degrees in the province of Ontario, probably a graduate of Toronto Univbrtsity, possessing special knowledge and ability, practising his profession in Ottawa, is unable to cross the boundary line, to cross the Ottawa river without being subjected to fine or imprisonment by incurring the penalties imposed by the province of Quebec ? And, vice versa graduates of McGill University, which is now turning ouII some of the best medical men on the American continent, men of standing in the practise of their profession, cannot cross an imaginary boundary line without being subjected to the penalties imposed upon them by the laws of other provinces. If it were a fact that the standard of medical education were so very much inferior in one province than in another there might be some excuse for such a law as this, but, the day has gone by when such a contention can be set out. It is not like it was in some of the states a few years ago when medical men were turned out by whole sale as goods are turned out of a factoiy. On the contrary, to-day, the standard is very high in each of the provinces of the Dominion and there is no possible excuse why such a law should be in existence at the present time.
Another feature that has been adverted to by the hon. member for Montreal is, that at the present time graduates from the different provinces of the Dominion are not placed on the same footing in the motherland as are graduates from the other colonies of His Majesty's dominions. For instance, a medical man who graduates in the commonwealth of Australia is allowed by simply paying his fee to obtain his license and practise his profession in the old country, while a practitioner from the province of Quebec, or the province of Ontario, must spend a certain length of time in the old country before he can go up for examination and then he must pass his examination and pay his fee before he can secure registration entitling him to practise. It is not because the standard is so very much higher in Australia than it is in Canada. I think we have as good colleges, if not better, in Canada than they have in Australia, but it is simply because of the lack of uniformity in our degrees in Canada. We cannot expect the motherland to recognize our

degrees from tlie different provinces when we do not recognize them between the provinces in our own Dominion, but, by having a Dominion registration board and allowing any graduate of any province to appear before that board, pass his examination and secure medical registration for the Dominion it will not only allow him to practise in any portion of the Dominion but to practise in the motherland as well.
By the passage of this Bill no vested rights are assailed there is no proposal to take away from any of the colleges or universities any existing rights or privileges. The Act is not a compulsory one to compel any one to pass the examination before the Dominion board. Any person graduating and desiring to practise his profession in a particular province has simply to comply with the laws of that province, but should he desire to place himself in a better position so that he will be able to practise in any of the provinces of the Dominion he may do so by appearing before the Dominion board, passing his examination, and securing the privilege of practising in any portion of the Dominion. There are one or two features in this Bill different from those contained in the Bill introduced during the preceding session to meet objections raised principally in the province of Ontario. One of these is in regard to the basis of representation and another in regard to the reregistration on a provincial degree. It was considered at first by the promoter of the Bill that representation on the basis of population would make the Bill too cumbersome and too unwieldy and it was proposed to allow each province the same number of representatives. To this there was objection made by the older and larger provinces that it would not give a fair show to the larger number of medical men in the larger provinces compared with the smaller number in the smaller provinces and a change has been made in the proposed Bill by which the profession according to population, as laid down by the hon. member from Montreal, are allowed representation. This, I think, will be satisfactory to the smaller provinces as well as to the larger ones. The other objection that has been made is owing to the fact that in Ontario, where the Medical Council is the examining board, they do not allow a graduate from, say Toronto University, to practise unless he appears before the Ontario Medical Council and obtains a license from that body. It is a very strict examination and they' consider that a graduate coming from Manitoba, having a degree from Manitoba University, should not be allowed to register before this Dominion board and go into the province of Ontario to practise his profession. A clause has been inserted, subsection 3 of clause 10. to meet this objection which reads as follows :-
The possession of a Canadian university degree alone, or of a certificate of provincial re-36*
gistration founded on such possession, shall not entitle the possessor thereof to be registered under this Act.
These are the two principal objections that were made to last year's Bill, and they have been remedied in the Bill as it now appears before the House. It is scarcely necessary to enter into a discussion of the various details of this Bill. I trust it will be referred to the committee that will be moved later on and that it will be thoroughly threshed out, where delegates from the various provinces will meet with the members of that committee. I believe that if this Bill becomes law it will not only be in the interests of the profession but also in the interests of the public.


Mr. L. P. DEMERS (St. John and Iberville).: (Translation.) Mr. Speaker, I have no objection to the Bill introduced by the hon. member from West Montreal (Mr. Roddick), now under consideration, being referred to a special committee of the House, provided the principle of the Bill be not adopted now. Interested as we are in the welfare of the medical profession, we are still more anxious to uphold the constitution.
I believe that the most serious objection that can be offered to this Bill, is that it is unconstitutional. It is provided by the constitution that in each province, the legislature may exclusively make laws in relation to matters coming within the classes of subjects assigned to that legislature. If we except agriculture and immigration, both of which subjects come within the jurisdiction of both the Dominion and the Provincial governments, I submit that, as regards all the other subjects, this parliament has no jurisdiction ; and that were we to pass into law the Bill introduced by the hon. gentleman, we should be encroaching upon provincial autonomy. And even should this Bill be made to apply to the Dominion at large ; even were we to enlarge the geographical area of its operation, it does not follow that it would thereby become constitutional.
Let me call the attention of my hon. friend to Lefroy's work, 'Legislative Power in Canada,' and to the following quotation from Judge Burton's judgment :
I think the principle must he clear that neither the Dominion parliament nor the local legislature can attract to itself a jurisdiction in matters assigned exclusively to the other power by the mere device of enlarging the geographical area so as to include the whole of the provinces, nor in the other case of restricting the area in which the power is to be exercised.
And Sir Oliver Mowat is quoted as follows :
It is clear that an alleged or supposed expediency of the law being uniform throughout the Dominion on any subject which is otherwise within the exclusive jurisdiction of the provincial legislatures does not give jurisdiction to the federal parliament to create uniformity.
Further on, the Hon. Edward Blake is quoted as saying :

We must recognize as an inconvenience inseparable from the federal system a lack of power anywhere to make uniform regulations, co-extensive with the whole Dominion, on subjects relegated to provincial authority.
Now, if we return to the British North America Act, we see that under clause 92, subsection 13, the legislature is empowered to exclusively make laws in relation to property and civil rights in the province ; surely, the right of practising medicine in another province is a civil right, and therefore, the parliament of Canada cannot pass into law such a Bill as is now under consideration.
Under clause 3970 of the Revised Consolidated Statutes of the province of Quebec- and I have no doubt that similar provisions are in force in all the other provinces-it is provided that no person shall be entitled to practise medicine in the province of Quebec, unless such person has first secured a diploma from the Medical and Surgical Board of the province of Quebec.
Should we adopt this Bill, does it not stand to reason that it would conflict with the existing provincial laws ? So, if all civil matters, with the exception of agriculture and immigration, are relegated to the provincial authority, we are forced to the conclusion that the Bill of my hon. friend, desirable as it may be in other respects-and I agree that it would be much more convenient for medical men to have the right to practise in any one of the provinces-cannot be adopted. Moreover, another thing which clearly shows that this Bill is not within the purview of the powers of this parliament is that it contemplates the establishment of a central examining board and a uniform standard of education and examination. Now, is it not true that all subjects relating to education are relegated to the provincial legislatures ? At all events, only in such exceptional cases as are mentioned in the constitution is the federal parliament free to interfere. On these several grounds I say that parliament should not undertake to pass this Bill, as this is not the proper place to deal with such matters. After all, it seems to me that the various medical bodies of the Dominion could easily come to an understanding and form into an association, with a view to promoting their interests throughout the different provinces, without going to the length of having this association recognized by the federal parliament. With this end in view, they could bring their combined influence to bear upon the provincial legislatures, so as to secure some reciprocity in the practise of their profession. Such a reciprocity, for instance, has been brought about by the bar of the province of Ontario and the bar of the province of Quebec. We have in our respective statute-books provincial Acts under which barristers from the one or the other province are allowed to practise their profession, upon payment of the usual fee. For instance, not long ago, the solicitor of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company was Mr. DEMERS (St. John & Iberville).
admitted to the bar of the province of Quebec, without having had to pass any examination, and upon payment of the customary fee.
Such a reciprocity existing between the two provinces, I say that it ought to be no difficult matter for the medical bodies to exert their influence, so as to secure from the provincial legislatures a similar privilege.
The main argument urged by the hon. member from Montreal, in support of his Bill, was that medical men cannot get a license to practise throughout the British empire. I think that on this point my hon. friend is also mistaken, and that he is putting a wrong construction on the British General Medical Act. As a matter of fact, under this Act medical practitioners in the British possessions, as well as medical men from foreign countries, are entitled to practise medicine and surgery in the United Kingdom.
Well. Mr. Speaker, I think Moli&re's aphorism : ' A door must either be open or shut,' applies here. Now, one of two things : we either belong to a foreign country or we form part of the British possessions : there is no getting out of that dilemma. The British Act applies to all countries, and my hon. friend is wrong when he says that it does not apply to the province of Ontario. Moreover, if we turn to clause 27 of the British General Medical Act, incorporated in our statutes, 50-51 Vic., we see the definition of the words ' a British possession and foreign countries.' If Ontario were not a British possession, it would rank as a foreign country, and even then, under clause 27 of said Act. medical men from- Ontario would enjoy similar privileges. Clause 27 reads as follows :-
The expression ' British possession ' means any part of Her Majesty's Dominions exclusive of the United Kingdom, but inclusive of the Isle of Man and the channel islands ; and where parts of such dominions are under both a central and a local legislature, all parts under one central legislature are for the purpose of this definition deemed to be one British possession.
In my view, this means the very reverse of the construction put upon the clause by the hon. gentleman. Is it not true that the province of Ontario is a British possession ? under the control of a central legislature ? To my mind there is not even a shadow of a doubt about it, and the hon. member for Montreal West has put a wrong construction upon that clause. Besides, as I said, if Ontario were not a British possession, within the meaning of the Act, then it would be a foreign country, and in that case medical men from foreign countries are entitled to the same privileges as are enjoyed by medical practitioners in the British possessions.
On these several grounds, Sir, although I do not object to this Bill being referred to a special committee, I do object to the principle of the Bill being now affirmed by the House.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: (Translation.) Would the hon. gentleman kindly Inform me whether he has received any communication from the authorities of Laval university in connection with this Bill ? I ask this question because I was not in my seat when the hon. gentleman rose to address the House. A few days ago I got several copies of this Bill-and I may say that 1 have not had time to thoroughly examine it-and I sent them to the dean of the faculty of Laval university. As I have received no answer yet, it occurred to me that perhaps the hon. gentleman (Mr. Demers) was speaking on behalf of the faculty.


Louis Philippe Demers: (Translation.) I do not belong to the faculty of Laval university.


Mr. R. LEMIEUX (Gaspe).: (Translation.) I may say that I have inquired, in a general way, of the hon. member from Montreal (Mr. Roddick) whether the members of the faculty of Laval university, were in favour of this Bill or not. From what I was told, I gather that the faculty has not taken a positive stand on the matter. I am further informed by the hon. gentleman (Mr. Roddick) that Dr. Laehapelle, the chairman of the Provincial Board of Health, and one of the members of the faculty, is a supporter of this Bill, but I have reason to believe that the faculty of Laval university is opposed to this measure.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: (Translation.) 1 asked the hon. gentleman that question because, having sent the Bill to the faculty without receiving any answer, I wished to inquire of him about the position taken by the Laval professors.


The PRIME MINISTER (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier).: There seems to be considerable doubt as to whether or not this Bill is within the purview of the powers of this parliament. The authority which has been cited by my hon. friend from Iberville (Mr. Demers) would tend to show that this parliament has no jurisdiction. At all events, even if this parliament had jurisdiction over this matter, yet in view of the fact that we know there is a good deal of jealousy on the part of the provinces which are at present exercising the same jurisdiction, I doubt if it would be well for us to legislate contrary to their wishes. As to the merits of the Bill, I understand from the discussion which has taken place to-day, that there seems to be some difference of opinion even amongst professional medical men. It is an old saying that doctors differ even in the exercise of their profession, and therefore it is not to be wondered at that they differ as regards legislation. I understand from my hon. friend (Mr. Roddick) that the only thing he has in view to-day is to refer the Bill to a special committee with the object of looking into its merits, and the law as well. It is a recognized principle that
when the House gives a second reading it approves of the principle of the measure, and but for the fact that my hon. friend (Mr. Roddick) has stated that his only intention is to refer this Bill to a Committee of the House; for my part I would not feel justified in supporting the second reading. But with the qualification which the hon. gentleman (Mr. Roddick) has made, and with the object of further having the matter investigated and reported on later, I think the House will do well to consent to the second reading, reserving to itself the privilege of judging on the principle of the Bill when it comes before us for its third reading, if it should come to that.


Mr. R. L. BORDEN (Halifax).: I wish to say that so far as I am concerned, that I do not share the doubts of certain hon. gentlemen as to the power of this parliament to pass this Bill. It is a statute jwhicli creates a corporation not having provincial objects, and on that ground alone I think that this parliament has jurisdiction to enact it. It is not an absolute test it is true, but would any of the hon. gentlemen who have spoken on the subject, venture to say that any provincial legislature in Canada would have the power to pass a statute of this character. I venture to think not. I believe that this parliament is the only legislative body in Canada that has power to pass such a Bill. A great many illustrations might be given from the very work that was cited by my hon. friend (Mr. Demers) to indicate that the weight of authority at the present time is not in favour of the principle which 1 understood him to enunciate. However, that question is not being debated just at present because the right hon. gentleman has consented that the Bill shall be referred to a committee for the purpose of being discussed there, and I suppose the question of its constitutionality, if we desire to discuss it, can be dealt with later on. So far as the merits of the Bill are concerned, I have not examined it very carefully, but there is one feature in it that appeals to me very much, and that is the principle of giving to the medical men of Canada a national standing which they do not seem to have at present. I am somewhat surprised to learn that an Imperial statute of the character referred to by the Deputy Speaker (Mr. Macdonald) has been permitted to exist so long, and that on account of it, medical men in Canada; men qualified to practise medicine in Canada have not been able to take the standing to which they certainly are entitled, in other countries, and particularly among our troops in South Africa. It seems to me that we ought to feel ashamed that medical men going from Canada; having the right to practise in any one of the great provinces of Canada; should in South Africa be submitted to the humiliation of not being allowed to attend the wounded among the

Imperial troops, simply for the reason that they have no standing among medical men in England. If I understood the statement of my hon. friend (Mr. Roddick) that is the position our medical men serving in South Africa were compelled to assume. I, for one, as a Canadian, feel ashamed of that state of things, and I am prepared to advocate any reasonable legislation which will obviate so disgraceful a condition of affairs. As the Bill is going to a special committee and is to be considered there much more carefully than it can be considered in this House, I will not now take the time of the House stating further the reasons on account of which I am in favour of this Bill. I have not sufficiently examined it to say that I am in favour of all its provisions, and so I am confining myself entirely to the principle involved.


Samuel Hughes: I was not in the House when the hon. member for Montreal (Mr. Roddick) and the hon. Deputy Speaker spoke, but if, as I understand they made the statement that Canadian medical men were not allowed to treat the wounded in South Africa, I think there is a mistake somewhere. I certainly saw Canadian doctors treating the wounded on many occasion's.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and Bill read a second time.
Thomas George Roddick: I beg to move, seconded by Dr. Macdonald :
That the said Bill be referred to a Select Committee to be composed of the hon. Minister of Agriculture, Messrs. Geoffrion, Casgrain, Belcourt, Bell, Morrison, Ganong, Oliver, Boyd, MacKinnon, and Drs. Macdonald, Sproule, Christie, Ross (Rimouski), Mignault, Kendall, Reid (Grenville), Johnston (Lambton), Roche (Marquette) Bourbonnais, McLennan, Lewis, Vrooman, Horsey, Beland and the mover, with power to send for persons, papers and records and to report from time to time, and that rule 78 be suspended as regards limiting the number to serve on said committee.


The MINISTER OP AGRICULTURE (Hon. Sydney A. Fisher).: I think the name of the Minister of Militia ought to be added to that committee. He is a doctor, and would be a very useful member.


Thomas George Roddick: I had intended that the hon. minister should be on the committee, but I think he has some objection. I would be very glad if he would serve.


Louis Philippe Demers: (Translation.) Mr. Speaker, I think some objection might be offered to the committee as it is now composed. As that committee will be called upon to consider whether this Bill is constitutional or not, I think the names of a few lawyers might be added to it. There are too many medical men on the committee in proportion to the number of lawyers.


The PRIME MINISTER (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier).: (Translation.) Should Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).
there not be a sufficient number of lawyers on the committee to kill the Bill, then the names of a few lawyers might be added to it.
Hon. Mr. ROSS (Victoria, N.S.) Is the name of the hon. Minister of Militia and Defence to be added ?


The PRIME MINISTER.: With the permission of the House, and if my hon. friend (Mr. Roddick) has no objection, I would suggest that the name of Dr. Borden should also be added to the committee.


Thomas George Roddick: I should be very much pleased.
Motion as amended agreed to.



DOMINION ELECTION ACT.-1900.


[Stage Direction]
Mr. JAMES CLANCY (Bothwell) moved second reading of Bill (No. 27) to further amend the Dominion Election Act, 1900. He said : Mr. Speaker, I Introduced a similar Bill last session, and as I then explained, the object of the measure is to prevent as far as possible a new and very dangerous system of intimidating voters at the polls. The object of the Bill is to prevent persons who have an interest in promoting the election of a candidate from going about circulating the report that the present ballot and mode of voting is not secret. It is no answer to say that the present ballot is perfectly secret, and that the voting is secret, because the persons who circulate that report know that it is secret, and therefore their crime commences the moment they set their statement afloat. I know nothing of more far-reaching influence than for persons to be permitted, at the time of an election, to go about saying to voters that the mode of voting and the ballot is not secret, and that it can be discovered how any person has voted who votes against a candidate who may be an employer of labour or is supported by an employer of labour. I will not take up the time of the House discussing this measure further, because it seems to me so perfectly obvious that it is necessary in the public interest. If we are to have anything like pure or fair elections on either side, we must meet these difficulties as they occur. The ingenuity of people in discovering new means of evading the law is so great and so frequently exercised, that we are constantly called on in this House to pass restrictive measures to meet such cases. To show that this Bill goes no further than we have already gone in protecting candidates and maintaining purity of elections, I will read section 118 of the Elections Act:
Any person who before or during an election knowingly publishes a false statement of the withdrawal of a candidate at such election, for the purpose of promoting or procuring the election of another candidate, is guilty of an unlawful act, and shall also forfeit the sum of one hundred dollars to any person who sues therefor, with costs.

I want to call the attention of the House to the fact that the person who circulates a report which he knows to be false uses a weapon for the purpose of intimidating voters. Now, all voters do not know that the ballot is a perfectly secret one, and it would be utterly impossible to convince some of them that there would be no danger of their losing their position if they voted in a certain way. I hope the House will see its way to accept this Bill as a proper measure for the protection of both sides, to guard against an evil which experience has shown to be one of the worst and most insidious forms of intimidation. I beg therefore to move the second reading of the Bill.
The MINISTER OF JUSTICE (Hon. Charles Fitzpatrick).: I would ask my hon. friend not to press this matter further at the present time. There are on the Order paper, some other amendments suggested to the Elections Act, and there are some others not yet introduced which we have to consider later, and I would ask the hon. gentleman to suspend his motion for the second reading of this Bill until we have time to consider all the amendments together. My hon. friend will bear in mind that this measure was proposed last year, and I think also the year before, and the House rejected it.


Mr. CLANCY.: I am afraid the hon. minister rejected it.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: I would not like to assume that my objection was the only one. At any rate, I want to consider the matter further in connection with these other matters, and I would therefore ask my hon. friend to let his Bill stand for the present.


James Clancy: I have no objection to let it stand, witli the understanding of course, that it will be considered with the other Bills.,


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: Certainly. Debate adjourned.



MOTION AGREED TO WITHOUT DISCUSSION.

[Stage Direction]
Return showing :-
1. The number ot timber limits, and where located, that have been disposed of by the government since July, 1896, in the province of Manitoba and the North-west Territories.
1. The names of the purchasers in each case, and price paid for each limit.
3. Copies of tenders for each limit, and names of newspapers in which advertisements appeared. -Mr. Rocha (Marquette).

[Stage Direction]
House in Committee of Supply :
Militia-Pay and allowances, $392,100.
['Friday, March 14, 1902.']
Samuel Hughes: Will the hon. minister explain the reasons for this increase of $2,491 over last year ?


The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE (Hon. F. W. Borden).: One thousand four hundred and ninety-one dollars of it is due to increased lodging allowance for district officers commanding in Toronto, London and British Columbia. The amount provided was too small. A $1,000 of the increase was required to pay the guards of honour.


Samuel Hughes: What increase in the number of officers of the permanent corps has been made during the past year ?


The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE.: There has been no increase above the establishment. During the time the contingents were serving in South Africa, a considerable number of permanent corps officers were in that country and had to be temporarily replaced. Now, however, nearly all the permanent force officers have returned, and we have not at all increased the establishment. It is precisely as it has been.


Samuel Hughes: Would the minister be good enough t6 explain why a number of the officers of the permanent corps who are the juniors of many men in the militia-men of greater experience-have been promoted to the rank of colonel over their seniors ?


The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE.: The officers of the permanent corps who have been gazetted colonel are Otter, Lessard, Drury and Evans. They had served in command in South Africa, and were specially mentioned by the War Office and recommended in regular course by the general officer commanding. I was very ready and glad to approve of the recommendation.


Hon. Mr. TISDALE.: I agree with the hon. minister that these were proper cases for promotion to the rank of colonel, on account of their services, whether they were senior or junior. Could the hon. gentleman give me a list of all the promotions, including these gentlemen ?
The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEF'ENCE. I will bring it down. I understand that it is to include honorary colonels as well.


Mr. INGRAM.: From whom could I find out the items of back pay given to those who served in South Africa ?


The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE.: I think there is a statement of the amounts in the blue-book which was issued last year as a supplement to the militia report. If the information is not to be fouud in that book, I shall be glad to get it and bring it here ; or if the hon. gentleman will come to the department- if he does not desire the information publicly given-he can get the facts at any time from the accountant, who has an account with every one of the officers and the men who served in South Africa.


Andrew B. Ingram: I did go to the department. The officers were very obliging and gave me all the information they could. But they could not give me these items, but recommended me to a certain officer who had paid some of these soldiers. However, I have not been able to get word from that gentleman either personally, by telephone or by letter.


The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE.: Who was the officer ?


Andrew B. Ingram: He was not a departmental officer, but it was his duty to pay out the money. If the hon. minister has any means of getting the information, I shall be glad to have it. I will apply for it privately.


Samuel Hughes: As I understood the hon. minister those officers who had been mentioned in the despatches of the British general were given the rank of colonel. But why were not all officers who were equally creditably mentioned in these despatches given the rank of colonel ?


The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE.: So far as I am aware, they were-that is. I will not say they were given the rank of colonel; but they were given additional rank to that which they held.


Samuel Hughes: Were all officers who were mentioned promoted ?


The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE.: I think so.


Samuel Hughes: I know they were not.


David Tisdale: ' I understand the minister to say that all officers who were recommended for the position were appointed-not all officers who were mentioned.


The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE.: And all officers who held positions of command in South Africa.


David Tisdale: I understand my hon. friend (Mr. Hughes, Victoria) to ask whether there were any who were mentioned in despatches and who held command, yet were not appointed.


The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE.: I am not aware of any, but I will inquire.


Samuel Hughes: I must enter my emphatic protest against the attempt that is being made-I shall not blame the minister for it-but the department, the red-tapeism of the department to give undue prominence to the permanent corps. It was so when those who are now in opposition in this House were in power, and I presume it will be so until the end of the chapter. Ever since the establishment of the permanent corps, there has been an attempt on the part of the gentlemen in that corps to place it superior to the active Hon. Mr. BORDEN (King's).
militia. There is a fear-a well-grounded, properly-grounded fear-not; only on the part of the active militia, but on the part of the men on the side lines who pay the taxes of this country, against what' they are pleased to term the spirit of militarism. They dread anything in the shape of an active militia regiment being established in their locality for fear of strengthening that spirit. Now, we have fought for years-I fought when my own friends were in office- against giving prominency to this permanent corps. We were told :	These gentlemen will understand the drill-book and drill better than an ordinary militiaman. Why, there is not a school boy, there is not a page on this floor, but could read in a week all the books that these gentlemen have to read. And, for a man of ordinary intelligence holding a position in the active militia of Canada to become perfect in -the book knowledge that is required to command a pennant corp or a militia corp in this country is a very easy, and a very simple matter. There are scores of men throughout the length and breadth of this country who are infinitely better posted than the men of the permanent corps. I can tell you, Sir, that some of the gentlemen whom this government has been pleased to create full colonels, when proceeding to active service in South Africa did not know the difference between a hired ship and a regular military transport. Further, officers in command en route to Africa-permanent corps officers, of course, for no man who was not a permanent corps man had any chance; officers of the militia, captains, and even men of higher rank could enlist as privates and have the privates of the permanent corps placed over them as noncommission officers, but when it came to commanding, all the positions of command were given to officers of the permanent corps-actually undertook to try the stewards of the ship, men in the pay of the captain of the ship. Why, they actually thought that they were the superiors of the captain of the ship. They did not seem to know that the captain could place the officer in command in irons if he chose- and the mystery to me is that, in some cases, that was not done. Yet we are told that these men are much superior to the men of the active militia of this country.
I want to point out to-day, as I have pointed out on many occasions in this House and out of it, that, from the earliest times in Canada until the present day, the irregulars, what you may term the active militia man, given as good arms and ammunition-in short, given equal opportunities with the regular-has trimmed the regular to a finish on every occasion. Take the history of the world, and it repeats the same thing over and over again. The defeat of regulars by irregulars in South Africa is only repeating the same story. The boys of the French Revolution period defeated the picked troops of Europe in every engage-

ment. In India, at the close of the eighteenth century, Britain had to find her Clive in a civilians office, and he it was who led her troops to victory. Again, at the time of the mutiny, she found her Nicholson, in the civil employment oT the empire, and he also organized victory for British arms. It was so in the United States during the civil war. Though the big positions were given to the regulars, the permanent corp men, the greatest success were due to the men from the farms. And even to-day the American nation finds in a farmer, a man who, three years ago was tilling the soil of Kansas, the man who in the Philippine war has brought it out of the wilderness, while the regulars, the permanent corps men of the United States have not proven equal to the occasion. So history everywhere proves that the irregular, the militiaman, given half a chance with the other, his individuality comes to the front and he proves himself a better man on every occasion.
I am free to say that the permanent corps men who will be able to tell off a drunkard may be a little better than an ordinary active militia man. He may be able to manage what is termed office affairs. He may be able to require the men to salute and go through the little etiquette, so to speak, of the service to better advantage than the men of the ordinary active militia. But that he is a better fighting unit for the defence of his country than the other, I am here to deny. I need not point to officers in this House who are fit to take their place in the command of men side by side with the best colonels in the militia of Canada to-day. I need not point to scores of officers in this country who are fit to lead their men in active service, or who are fit to lead their men in ordinary brigade parade, side by side with the officers of the permanent corps, and do it infinitely better than they. Let me relate what took place on a field day in the city of Toronto a few years ago. An officer, I think it was an officer of the Grenadiers, or of a Hamilton battalion, detached two companies in order to guard the other flanks. The attacking force came on, and the umpires, who were largely permanent corps officers, happened to see these companies detached at the flanks and they ruled them off the field. The only sensible move of the whole day was to put these companies there, yet they were ruled out of action by the permanent corps men, one of them an officer with the rank of Lt. Colonel in His Majesty's Imperial service. On being remonstrated with, it was pointed out that these companies would have been cut off instantly had they been in an actual engagement. Let me point out, Sir, that the magnificent Guards brigade at the battle of Magersfontein was held in check for more than half a day by seventy-two men of the Scandinavian brigade, although they did not occupy a position at all to be
compared with the position held by these two infantry companies of Toronto and Hamilton ; the magnificent Guards brigade were held in check for upwards of half a day by 72 men, about half the number that were detached from this Hamilton and Toronto regiment in that sham fight ; and, Sir, they held a position nothing like as strong as the position held by these people here. Again, I may point to an incident at Queenston Heights, where a permanent corps officer was in command, and where an ordinary hayseed brigade full of ordinary hayseed commanding officers


Mr. THOMPSON.: Order, order.


Samuel Hughes: My hon. friend from Haldimand (Mr. Thompson) was not present.


Rodolphe Lemieux: But the hon. member for Victoria (Mr. Hughes) was present.


Samuel Hughes: Yes, I was. I make no claim to be any better than an ordinary officer commanding a hayseed regiment. But this permanent corps officer, after having made dispositions for defence, found himself suddenly surrounded with two battalions and a half of men on the Heights, within a hundred yards, although neither he nor one of his men had seen them go there. Again I can point to an incident in the past season where two permanent corps officers were acting as umpires to watch some companies occupying an impregnable position, much stronger than that held by the Scandinavian detachment at Magersfontein, and the companies were ruled out of order, although there were one hundred and there were only a hundred men opposed to them, by these permanent corps officers.
I would not bring these matters up were it not for a deliberate attempt that is continued year after year to put permanent corps officers in senior positions. I am not blaming the minister, it was begun long before he ever became Minister of Militia and Defence, and these evils then, I believe, were much more patent than they are to-day. But a constant attempt is made on the part of those interested in upbuilding the permanent corps in this country to place them superior to the ordinary militia force of Canada. I say that permanent force was created, not as a standing army, not as a police force, but it was created as an educational institution. Now, Sir, I stand here to-day to say that that permanent corps to-day does not perform the functions expected of it ; and if it does perform the functions of an educational institution, then, as a matter of mere arithmetic, if you take the cost of that force and divide it by the number of certificates issued, you will find every certificate issued to a young fellow from the country costs this country away up in the thousands of dollars-a rather expensive education. Now I wish to point out here in connection with the permanent

corps that they should be there as an educational force. I shall not discuss that matter any further at the present time, because I have a motion on the paper relating to it, and intend to discuss it at length when that motion comes up.
But I wish to point out to the minister that the militia of this country and the people of this country will not consent to see these gentlemen placed as seniors over men who have borne the brunt of the work of upbuilding the militia force of Canada and bringing it to the position it occupies to-day. There are scores of men in the militia force of this country who were in it almost before some of the men were born who are full colonels to-day. I am not saying anything against these gentlemen, but they are placed senior to the militia men, and I want to know what they have done for it. I may as well take up the question of military schools in connection with these permanent corps, although it will come up under another item. I may say that I took the same lines when the Liberal-Conservative party were in power on this question that X am taking to-day. I had the privilege of pointing out to a Conservative Minister of Militia and Defence in those days what I am pointing out to the Liberal minister to-day. I contended that the schools of those permanent corps as an educational institution, do not perform the functions that the people expect of them.
How does a young fellow get into the schools to-day ? I will give you an instance of a young fellow from a clean honest farmer's home, who becomes an officer in one of our militia companies. He wishes to attend the schools. He makes his application, but not being able to attend at the time fixed, he names another day when he wishes to attend. For instance, one young officer applied to go on the 1st of January. He was notified that he must attend on the 1st of November, or some date in that neighbourhood. It was absolutely impossible for him to go then, and as a consequence his transport was sent back. Two days before the 1st of January, when he had heard nothing whatever about the possibility of such an arrangement, two days before that date he received notice that he could attend school on the 1st of January. But the young fellow had made other ar-arrangements. He had been refused admission previously for the 1st of January, and had made other disposition of his time, and it was absolutely impossible for him to go then. Now supposing he had gone to the school, what would have been the routine procedure ? He would have had to purchase a little uniform. I am pleased to say that under the present minister and his predecessors there has been a little im-improvement-because after a few years of hammering away I did get our Conservative minister to relax a little on the red tape of the proceeding, but it took session after session of effort in* this House and in the Mr. HUGHES (Victoria).
country to get the rule removed so that these boys from the country would not require to procure not only a full dress but a mess uniform before going to Toronto. We have got it down finally to something that is not very burdensome, but nevertheless they have got to buy a sword and a uniform, and they go down to Toronto, young fellows who know little or nothing about military work, and they are rushed into the ante room. There are certain little points of etiquette there that they have to follow. But these boys are not, many of them, in the habit of treating, or ' setting it up,' as it is termed. They are led innocently into violating this or that rule in connection with the routine of the ante room, and very frequently they are led into violating these rules by officers of the school, by officers of the permanent corps of this country, and then the punishment is ' setting it up ' for the boys. I can give you instances of young fellows whose fathers are rather averse, as a rule, to their boys entering into the corps, because there is a dread on the part of parents to see their sons rushed into this sort of thing. A young fellow has to haul out three, or four, or five dollars, as the case may he, and pay for ' setting it up,' in other words, for his little mistake in the ante room.
Tuttle things like that should be obliterated from every military school. I do not see that any advantage would be gained by a man going to the military schools of this country and living in the barracks. What is he going to learn by living in the barracks ? Our young men can go to the universities and medical colleges of the country and board wherever they choose throughout the city. Why should not a man in the military service be permitted to do the same thing ? The best men in the military service to-day were allowed to do this when they attended the old military schools. They were not obliged to go into the barracks and room with some fellow, possibly a decent fellow and possibly not. They were treated as self-reliant and responsible beings. To-day there is the old discipline of repression, the old spirit of dark ageism, and I shall discuss that point at more length on another occasion. The old spirit of repression is still in force. If we examine into the military systems of the nations of the world we find in them the remnants of dark age repression, of slavery, and of the discipline of the prison instead of the discipline of free men. Take our soldiers in the permanent corps to-day ; they are treated as children and not as men. I am glad to say the conditions are improving but improving slowly. I am sorry to say that the improvement is not making as fast progress as is the improvement in prison discipline. In the armies of France and Germany and the armies of other nations the discipline is being strengthened and an attempt is being made in this country at the present moment to fasten upon it the tyranny of a British

military system. I stand here to say that that will never succeed with a people living in a free country like Canada. Instead of the discipline being made more repressive, or continuing along repressive lines, it should be relaxed and men should be made freer. The discipline should be such as to promote freedom and individuality with the object of developing individuality rather than repressing it by enforcing the discipline of the slave and of the prison. I shall not take up the time of the House now, but on another occasion I purpose discussing this whole question of the training of ofiicers and I shall then enter into the subject at greater length. Mark you, however, the present hon. Minister of Militia and Defence (Hon. Mr. Borden) deserves credit for having wiped out some of these objectionable features from time to time as they have been brought before him, or as soon as he possibly could. I am free to say that he has done a good deal in that line, but I would point out to him that there are a great many more reforms to be made in the permanent corps if we want the militia of Canada to be what it should be. I maintain that the militia of this country must always be the backbone especially in modern times with long range rifles. I shall not take up the time of the House by pointing out that long before the present war occurred I stated in this House that standing armies had to vanish. They must vanish under modern long range rifle practise and the only safeguard of any nation is to have the whole body of the people trained to the use of arms and possessing sufficient discipline to manage themselves so that they could easily get their positions. In that way the whole fighting population of the country could attend to business in time of peace and in time of war shoulder their rifles and march to the front, and by their expert marksmanship and overwhelming power, they would make a short, sharp war something that would only be possible in a country that has a great militia force. I shall not say anything more on this item until I hear from some other hon. gentleman.


The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE.: The observations of my hon. friend (Mr. Hughes, Victoria) are certainly entitled to consideration always. What he says on military subjects is entitled to consideration, and, I think, in view of his remarks in condemnation of the permanent force, he is entitled to receive from me some answer, if an answer is possible. I am glad to be able to agree with the hon. gentleman in all the good things he says of the active militia of Canada. I believe we have, in Canada, elements from which can be made as efficient a fighting force as can be found in any country in the world. The arguments, or statements, which my hon. friend has used against the permanent force, if they mean anything, seem to me to mean
that the permanent force should be immediately abolished. That is the only logical conclusion


Samuel Hughes: Why not reform them ?


The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE.: The only logical conclusion to be drawn from my hon. friend's statements is that, as at present constituted and with the personnel which we find to-day in the permanent force, it is utterly useless, and of course, if useless, is really worse than useless if any strain were put upon the forces of this country in the way of demanding a defence. Now, I beg to differ entirely from my hon. friend. I cannot say that I am particularly in love with a standing army. I have said more than once that it is opposed, and I agree with my hon. friend that it is opposed, to the ideas and the wishes of the people of this country to have a standing army as such. But, we must have the nucleus of an army for the purpose of defence. We must have in certain permanent places garrisons, especially now when we are left entirely to depend upon ourselves. We must have teachers to instruct


Samuel Hughes: Hear, hear.


The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE.: To instruct the officers and noncommissioned officers of the militia force of this country.


Samuel Hughes: That is just what we want.


The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE.: Very well. I contend, Mr. Chairman, that we have, taking it all in all, a good average set of men as officers of our permanent force, that they have done then-work fairly well and that they are doing their work fairly well to-day. I found, when I came into office, a certain condition of things existing in the militia, the result of development during some thirty years. I did not, after looking over the field, consider it to be my duty to wipe away all I found, although there were some things which I found which I did not approve of. I believed then, and I am more strongly convinced to-day than I was then, that the condition of things in the militia of Canada at the time I took office was fairly good, as good as could be expected in view of the money which had been voted from time to time and the attention which had been given to the militia. I have endeavoured, not to tear down or destroy, but improve, to build up and to add to the condition of things which I then found. Now, I most positively deny that the officers of the permanent force are men who are not entitled to the confidence of the people of this country.


Samuel Hughes: Does the hon. minister say that I said the officers were not entitled to the confidence of the people?


The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE.: Yes.


Samuel Hughes: What I said was that they were not more entitled than scores, I would say hundreds, of the active militia men.


The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE.: Quite so, but the hon. gentleman (Mr. Hughes, Victoria) must remember that I have been trying to point out that we must have a permanent force in this country.


Samuel Hughes: The minister will be good enough not to place words in my mouth that I have never uttered.


The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE.: I fail to see the point of the hon. gentleman's argument. He stated that on the occasion of certain military evolutions at certain points, the permanent force officers were not capable of commanding a brigade even.


Samuel Hughes: I say so.


The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE.: That is exactly what I thought the hon. gentleman said.


Samuel Hughes: I say so.


The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE.: Then, if we have in the permanent force ol Canada officers so ignorant that they are not able to fulfil the ordinary duties of an officer-to come back to the point I started with-the argument of the hon. gentleman means that we should sweep the whole force away as it exists to-day. Tlie hon. gentleman has made comparisons between the active militia and the permanent force, and he said the Militia Department had shown undue favours to the permanent force. To use his own words, he said : No man had any chance unless he belonged to the permanent force. Sly hon. friend knows, that of the officers that were sent to South Africa fully nineteen-twentieths of them belonged to the active militia. But perhaps my hon. friend will say that positions of command were given to permanent force officers. That is true. Positions of command were given to permanent force officers because it was thought necessary to place over the other officers and over the men sent to South Africa, men who had had experience, scientific and educated soldiers, men who had had the opportunity of being taught in the schools in England ; men who had had the opportunity-in time of peace, it may be-but whether in time of peace or not, had had an opportunity of continuous command in this country, and therefore should be more familiar with the duties required of them. These were the men who were selected. I Mr. HUGHES (Victoria).
selected them on the recommendation of the general officer commanding. I have had no reason in any one case to regret the selection made. These officers went to South Africa and they did their duty with distinction to themselves and with credit to their country. Then as to the active militia does my hon. friend forget the record of the active militia officers who served in South Africa ? Does he forget Colonel Turner, who won the Victoria Cross and the D.S.O. ; does he forget Captain Cock-burn of Toronto


Samuel Hughes: And Morrison of Ottawa.


The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE.: Does he forget Colonel Hurd-man of this city, who was in a position of command ? Does he forget all those men who distinguished themselves ?


Samuel Hughes: Certainly not.


The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE.: The argument of the hon. gentleman against the permanent force is not well founded. I think the House will agree with me, that we must continue our permanent force. While it is not perfect it is a fairly good force, and it is in the interest of the militia of this country that we should maintain it. As to the schools, the hon. gentleman has said that the principal object of the permanent force is education.


Samuel Hughes: Hear, hear.


The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE.: There is no question about that. But the hon. gentleman has said that there are some difficulties found at the schools, and he objects to our insisting upon the officers from the active militia to be required to live in barracks.	.


Samuel Hughes: The minister has misunderstood me. My chief objection to the officers living in barracks is this : That you can only pass a very few officers at very great expense. I am not specially objecting to men living in barracks, although I have yet to see the advantage of a man living in barracks over a man living outside.


The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE.: There would be I suppose the same advantage as in the case of a student attending a university, who has the advantage of living within the walls of the college. He has an advantage over the student who lives outside. When a man lives in barracks there is a military atmosphere pervading


Samuel Hughes: Pretty thick sometimes.


The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE.: However that may be, there is the advantage of lectures, there is the advantage of constant association with military officers, there is the advantage of the

officers being attached for duty, as they are in many cases, so that they may learn their duties by actual experience. I agree with the hon. gentleman in the main, that it is desirable to give much wider opportunities to the officers of the active militia to acquire knowledge, and that we should when possible carry the schools to the officers at certain centres. That we have done.


Samuel Hughes: Yes, I know.


The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE.: That was done by the former government and we have continued it so far as possible, but the staff of the permanent force is limited, and it is difficult to carry on the schools at the depots and at the same time detail the necessary officers to carry on the schools elsewhere. But it is being done at all events to the utmost extent possible. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Hughes, Victoria) spoke with regard to treating. Whatever might have been the case as to treating in the past, I believe that to-day, at the depots, treating is discountenanced altogether and it is against the rules.


Samuel Hughes: I am glad to hear it.


The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE.: An officer of the active militia who is attending the school is forbidden to treat, so that there ought be no objection on that score at the present time. When the hon. gentleman brings the question up on his motion, I shall be very glad to discuss the matter with him as fully as may be necessary.


Samuel Hughes: The hon. gentleman seems to be under a misapprehension as to what I have said. The minister told us that one of the advantages of a man living in residence was that he would be attached for duty. Can the minister or any one else point out one duty that a re-sidental officer performs which under the old system was not performed by an officer boarding outside. I have had a military school experience and experience elsewhere, and I must say that the system of boarding outside the barracks was infinitely better both in a disciplinary sense and in the sense of being attached for duty. We had to get up in the morning and walk a mile or so and be in our places at 6 o'clock, and that in itself was good discipline. Then, every man had to be attached as a noncommission officer on guard duty, or canteen duty, or ration duty, or some other duty. There is no duty which an officer or noncommissioned officer performs in residence that he would not perform if he boarded outside. The minister certainly labours under a misapprehension when he: supposes that I would sweep the whole force away. I would sweep it away as a standing army, but I would increase it as a
teaching body. I would entirely do away with the red tape and the standing guard. Why should you require to have a man standing sentry at the gate of your barracks. night and day, as if he were guarding the gate of a prison ? This is a free country. Our camping experience shows that those camps which have no guards are the orderly camps, while those which have guards at every tent door, hedging the men in, are the camps where there is disorder and where discipline fails. I do not believe in repressive discipline; I believe in educational. I purpose taking up this subject on another motion, when I will show that the training of officers is not being carried on at the present time in this country. We are not even keeping pace with the number of officers who are leaving the regiments. I venture the statement that there are fewer qualified officers in the force to-day, excepting those who have been qualified by their service in South Africa, than there were twelve months ago, and that there were fewer twelve months ago than there were twelve months before that. They are gradually falling off, and it is next to impossible to get an officer into the schools. But I intend to take this whole question up on another motion, and to enter into it at length.


David Tisdale: Is the minister's report down yet ?


The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE.: No.


David Tisdale: I do not wish to stop the passage of these items; but I would not like to have the large items passed without seeing what the general and the officers say on the whole subject.


The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE.: I expected to lay the report on the Table to-day. Would it do, as we have often done, to reserve one item for the general discussion ?


Samuel Hughes: That means that it may pass some night at 12 o'clock when there is nobody here.


David Tisdale: we will practically pass the items to-night, and we will agree not to discuss them over again unless the report contains something that makes it necessary to do so. I am sure we are most anxious to go on; but I do not think it would be proper to be placed in the position of having passed all these items without seeing the report.


Andrew Thorburn Thompson: It is almost six o'clock, but I would like to occupy two or three minutes to say a word in favour of the permanent schools which my hon. friend has attacked, it seems to me. with rather undue severity. As a friend of the active militia, I take a second place to no one; but I believe that the permanent force also

is a most useful force. While it may be improved, and I believe it will be in the future, it is giving valuable service to this country. Last session the minister introduced a pension system which will have the effect of inducing better men to enter the permanent force, because ineir old age is provided for. My hon. friend from North Victoria (Mr. Hughes) spoke of the incompetence of those men in South Africa for active warfare. I think that if that war has demonstrated anything, it has demonstrated this, that war alone is the test of a soldier's efficiency. A man may be trained ever so well, and may yet show in the field of battle an incompetence for war. But among the officers who distinguished themselves in South Africa were Colonel Otter, Colonel Buchan, Colonel Lessard and Colonel Evans, every one of them permanent officers.


Samuel Hughes: And Colonel Durie.


Andrew Thorburn Thompson: And Colonel Durie-I have not time to mention them all.


An hon. MEMBER.: He is not a permanent officer.


Andrew Thorburn Thompson: These men did good service in South Africa. The hon. member for Victoria did extremely good work there too-I have heard that from many men-and he is not a permanent officer. I wish to pay him that tribute. 1 have been told that there was no more efficient free lance in South Africa than Col. Hughes. My hon. friend left the impression on the mind of the House that these permanent schools were places where young men learned bad habits-where they spent a great deal of time in drinking. I have had three courses at Stanley Barracks in Toronto, and I can assure my hon. friend that we had no time for hard drinking, even if we had the inclination, which we had not; and the rule against treating in the ante-room was rigidly enforced. There may be occasionally a young man who, in the words of Kipling, sometimes ' goes wide a bit;' but that is not the fault of the place, but only the result of youth and foolishness.
At Six o'clock, committee took recess.
After Kecess.
Committee resumed at eight o'clock.
Excise-salaries of officers and inspectors of excise, &c., to provide for increases depending UDon the result of excise examination, $327,429,37.


The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE (Hon. M. E. Bernier).: There is an increase of $5,530, composed as follows : Regular increases, $4,882.50 ; increases due to change in classification of division, $850 ; increases due to promotion and promotion examination, $1,405 ; total, $7,137.50 ; less decrease resulting in filling positions vacant by Mr. THOMPSON.
deaths, superannuation and resignation, $1,607.50, leaving a net increase of $5,530.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: How does the minister grant the regular increases ? Does the clerk get his increase on the recommendation of the chief ?


The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE.: The increase is regulated or fixed by Order in Council, five per cent on their minimum salary.	[DOT]


John William Bell: Has the statutory increase been granted to every member of the staff ?


The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE.: Yes.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: There are no exceptions, granted to all ?


The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE.: No exceptions.


Mr. BOYD.: Does that item include inspectors of coal oil ?


The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE.: We have no special officer of that class. The ordinary officials are performing the duties of inspecting coal oil.


Nathaniel Boyd: I wished to know if the inspector of coal oil at Fort William comes under this head.


The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE.: I may state to the hon. gentleman that we have no special inspector of coal oil. Our regular officers of the excise perform these duties.


Nathaniel Boyd: Who inspected the coal oil last summer coming into Fort William from the United States ?


The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE.: The collector of customs at Port Arthur.


Nathaniel Boyd: Has there been any complaint made to the department regarding that coal oil.


The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE.: Yes, we have had complaints.
Mi-. BOYD. Who did you find was to blame in regard to it ?


The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE.: We have had some complaints, and we are now investigating them.


Nathaniel Boyd: I may say, Mr. Chairman, that there is a matter that has caused widespread dissatisfaction throughout Manitoba and the North-west. During the last season there came into that country from the United States quantities of coal oil that was simply abominable. It was distributed throughout Manitoba and the North-west Territories, and in many cases it was found so unfit for use that it was thrown away, or destroyed. Now, I believe and the people of that country believe, that this government, and the department who has charge of it, are directly responsible for the admission

of that coal oil. We know that since this government took charge of the affairs of this country they have made alterations in the coal oil inspection, they have made regulations in regard to importation of coal oil by permitting it to come into this country in tank vessels, and by certain other changes they have put the whole of the coal oil business into the hands of the American or Standard Oil Company. That is pretty well established throughout Canada at the present time. The coal oil that 1 speak of is brought in by that company,_and as I say, was distributed throughout the west. Certain complaints were made, in fact the whole press of that country was ringing with complaints about that oil, I may say from Calgary to the Red river. At first the Liberal press claimed that the government were in no way responsible for it, and the manager of the Standard Oil Company explained it in a way, saying that they had brought it in in large quantities, had stored it in large tanks, and that by reason of storing it in these large tanks and drawing it from the top or the bottom, I forget which, a certain sediment had formed in it, and in consequence the oil turned out to be bad. But he claimed they were not to blame, that they were looking into it, and were going to ascertain what bad oil was in the country and have it returned. But as I say, the Liberal press of the country claimed the department was in no way responsible. Afterwards, however, I understand that the department began to recognize their responsibility, and directed their officers to inquire into it and ascertain if an inferior oil was being sold. They were to examine the oil that was being offered for sale after giviug the company, as we believe, ample time to remove the inferior oil from the hands of the merchants. Now, Mr. Chairman, this is a very serious state of affairs, and I expect that the minister is prepared to give us a full explanation.


The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE.: I may state to the hon. member that there are two ways by which that oil is inspected. When it is Canadian oil it is inspected at the refinery ; when it is imported it is inspected by the customs officer. We had some complaints made during the fall. We ordered an analysis made of oil from Manitoba and the North-west Territories, and after such analysis it was found that this Oil was in conformity with the law as it stands now, and as it has stood for the last eight or ten years. Afterwards we had another complaint, and we ordered a collection of samples to be made in Manitoba and the North-west Territories, and that oil is now being analysed by Mr. Kenrick, of Winnipeg, and we are waiting for the result of his analysis.


William James Roche: The minister states that samples that were examined
were found to be all right according to the law of the past ten years.


The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE.: Yes.


William James Roche: Has the law been changed in any respect during the last ten years ?


The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE.: No, not with regard to the gravity or flash of the oil.


William James Roche: I think the minister is mistaken. Has there not been some omission with regard to testing as to quality?


The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE.: No.


Nathaniel Boyd: Did the minister take any samples from the tanks at Fort William in consequence of this complaint ?


The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE.: Yes.


Nathaniel Boyd: Was it not known to the department that the company had taken samples of this oil, and had taken it to their headquarters at Chicago in order to ascertain if it was of inferior quality ? Is the government aware of that ?


The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE.: The department is not aware of that.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Who is specially charged in Montreal with the inspection of oil ? I do not know if the minister is aware that there have been a great many complaints in all the counties surrounding Montreal in respect to the quality of the oil imported. Have these complaints reached the department ?


The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE.: None from the district of Montreal.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Was there an inspector appointed specially for the inspection of oils in the district of Montreal ?


The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE.: No.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Is there no inspection then of oils coming into Montreal ? There is a large consumption there.


The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE.: It is inspected by the customs officer, as I have already stated. We have no special officer for that purpose. Some of the officers of my department perform that duty when required.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Have there been any analyses of these oils arriving in Montreal ?


The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE.: Not since I have been in the department.


Nathaniel Boyd: I understood the minister to say that there had been no changes made. I find the old Act reads this way :

The quantity and quality of imported naphtha or petroleum- in eao'a package should be ascertained by weighing and measuring, by the inspector.
The new Act says :
The quantity of petroleum or naphtha should be ascertained by weighing or measuring.
Nothing about quality.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I understand from the minister that the inspection by the customs officer does not cover the quality of the oil. Is there any report made to the government as to the quality of the oil imported into Montreal ?


The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE.: No.
Mr. IiOYIJ. I do not think the minister has explained this matter satisfactorily to the committee. If that oil was properly inspected, as it should have been, it would have been impossible for such a large quantity to be sent broadcast over the country to be sold. It was one of the leading planks in the Liberal party, when they were asking to be returned to power that the people were charged too much for their coal oil. I remember that the present leader of the government shed tears-an hon. friend suggests that they were crocodile tears, but that is a matter of course-when lie condoled with the women of Selkirk over the enormous price they had to pay for coal oil, a necessary of life, in the long winter evenings, when better coal oil could be bought on the other side of the boundary for very much less money. We find the coal oil is the same price in Manitoba and the North-west Territories to-day as it was then. But, owing to the changes that have been made, the coal oil is not so good. There was an inspection in those days for quality as well as quantity. The government is certainly responsible for the change, and the mere fact that the coal oil comes in in small packages, or large packages, in vessels or in tank cars, does not exonerate the government in the least. And, if it is for the payment of these officers and the continuation of this system that the government are asking for this money, it is well that the public should understand it.


The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE.: My department has only to comply with the law which requires that oil should be tested for its flash and gravity. As I have stated, the inspection of oil coming from the United States is made by the customs officers, while the test of the Canadian oil is made at the place where it is refined. We did not refuse to act upon the complaints that were received. As I have stated, we analyzed samples and found that they complied with the law, with regard to flash and gravity. But, the complaints having been repeated, we ordered a collection of new samples and these are now undergoing


Nathaniel Boyd: chemical analysis. If the law is defective, the government or the department may be held responsible for the necessary changes. But I would suggest to the hon. gentleman that it would be better to await the result of the analysis before changing the law. Except for the changes that the hon. gentleman has stated, the terms are the same. The department will always be ready to hear complaints and to remedy any evils that are found to exist. As to the payment of the officers, I think my hon. friend (Mr. Boyd) is going a little too far. I have already stated that we have no special officer to inspect coal oil. That work is done by the regular excise officers. But these officers are the same men who occupied the positions before the advent to power of the present government. I do not think the criticism is fair to these gentlemen. I have been associated with them for two years, and, with a few exceptions, they have fulfilled their duties faithfully.


Mr. BLAIN.: Do I understand that the same inspection of coal oil coming into this country in small barrels is practiced as was formerly practiced ?


The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE.: Y'es, there has been no change. What the officers used to do in the past they are doing now.


Richard Blain: In the past, when coal oil was brought in in small barrels, a stamp was put on the end of the barrel, so that the retailer selling the oil had an opportunity to understand the test that had been made. How is that arranged now ?


The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE.: I understand that the law requiring a mark on the package was done away with in order that the oil might be shipped in in tank cars. The amendment was made in 1898 *or 1899.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: We are asked to vote this large sum of $490,000; and I see on the next page of the estimates a vote of $122,000 for the inspection of weights, measures, gas and electric light. I understand that the immense quantity of coal oil that comes into Montreal now, for which we pay a higher price than we did before the present government came into power, and as to which there has been complaints, is left absolutely without inspection as to quality.


The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE.: If I repeat myself, it is only that I may be well understood. There is no special inspection of such oil by the excise officers of the Inland Revenue Department. That inspection is made by the customs officers.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: As to quantity, not as to quality, I understand,


The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE.: As to the test required by law.


Mr. OLIVER.: For the information of the minister, I wish to speak on behalf of the

section of the country I represent, but I understand that the case is common over the whole country. During the past winter, consumers of coal oil have been practically robbed by having sold to them an oil of quite inferior quality. This is a condition of affairs that has not hitherto prevailed. I do not know, and it is not material as I understand the present discussion, whether the law provides for such a case or not. The point 1 want to make is that the condition exists and that it is absolutely necessary to provide fully for that condition at this session of parliament, so that, if an effort should be made to again impose upon the public, effectual means will have been provided against that imposition.


The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE.: I do not pretend to say that the experience of the past year or two will not make necessary changes in the law. But my hon. friend must await, as I do, the result of the analysis that is now going on, and which, I claim, will be completed in time to enable us to change the law if it is found necessary. We have done what we thought was our duty to do, and the government cannot be held responsible for the importation of that oil. All we have to do is to comply with the law as it is. If it is proven that the law is insufficient, then it will be the duty of the government to change it in order to remedy these evils.


Richard Blain: What qualifications has the officer at Fort William to inspect oil ?


The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE.: He is not an officer of my department, but a customs officer. I cannot vouch for his qualifications. I do not know the gentleman who has charge of that duty.


Frank Oliver: Might I take a position to some extent opposed to the minister when he says that we must await the result of the analysis before we change the law ? I say the analysis which the consumers of coal oil have been compelled to make during the last six months is sufficient evidence that action is required. If the law as it is now does not cover the case, then it should-I will go so far as to say that it must-be made to cover that case for the future, irrespective of any chemical analysis. The analysis may be necessary to decide .iust exactly the terms in which the law should provide for the future, but it is clear either that the law has not been maintained or that it does not properly provide for the protection of the public.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I would like to know what this law is. For it seems to me that under this government the Standard Oil Company has been allowed to import oil in tank steamers, and we have been deprived of the certificate which was on the package which formerly was necessary. Under the law, the Department of Inland Revenue has power of inspection. There is nothing in 37
the law to prevent the Department of Inland Revenue from inspecting coal oil coming in without any mark as to quality. And surely it is impossible, I do not say for the minister, but for the officers of the department, to ignore the fact that there have been complaints. Complaints are rife throughout the country-I know they exist in my own section-as to the great deterioration of the quality of the oil imported for three or four years past. This is all the more remarkable as there has been an increase in the prices.


The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE.: When the law was changed in 1899 it was at the request of the people of Manitoba and the North-west Territories who wanted to have the price of oil reduced. In order to reach that end the law was changed and it was made permissible to carry coal oil in large tanks to be distributed at a cheaper rate. But, in regard to the inspection of oil, there was no change and the only way to deal with the matter that I see at the present moment is that when the analysis is made, if anything is wrong, or if any other oil or mixture enters into the oil which is imported or sold, then, we might change the law, or enact a law, in order to have a closer inspection. But, Just now, we cannot exceed the power we have as to the test of the oil, and in that respect I understand that the law was not changed.


James Clancy: The hon. gentleman accounted for some of the increases that appear here by stating that there were some changes made in the inspectoral divisions. Will the hon. gentleman state where these changes were made and what is the effect of them ?


The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE.: My hon. friend (Mr. Clancy) knows that we have six classes of Inland Revenue divisions. When the business of a division which belongs to, say, class 4, is such as to entitle that division to be changed from the 4th to the 3rd, or 2nd class, the salaries of the officers of the division are thereby Increased according to a certain schedule of salaries of collectors, deputy collectors, excise men and clerks.


James Clancy: Were not some changes made in the Windsor division within the last few months ?


The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE.: No.


James Clancy: No changes ?


The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE.: Not in regard to a change in the classification of that division.


James Clancy: I mean in the personnel.
The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE, There were changes in the personnel of the staff.


James Clancy: Will the hon. gentleman state what the changes were ?


The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE.: Perhaps my hon. friend will give me another opportunity. There are changes contemplated and suggested, but I am not opeu now to say what these are because they require the signature of His Excellency. In a week, perhaps sooner, I will be in a position to state to the hon. gentleman what these changes are.


James Clancy: Have there been any changes yet made in the personnel of the staff ?


The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE.: None, except the superannuation of Mr. Gow.


James Clancy: Perhaps the hon. gentleman will state the reason for superannuating Mr. Gow ?


The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE.: He is 70 years of age and he, himself, asked for his superannuation.


James Clancy: His age is his crime, 1 suppose?


The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE.: We were very anxious to retain his services, but, lie himself pressed us to grant him superannuation.


James Clancy: I fancy that there are not many men pressing for superannuation. I fancy that when we look over the records, and if the newspapers are to be credited, we will find that hon. gentlemen are dropping heads into the basket either by superannuation or dismissal. I suppose Mr. Gow did not want to go to the guillotine and he asked, rather than suffer a worse fate, to be superannuated ? Was that the case with this gentleman ?


The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE.: I can tell the hon. gentleman that he had better rely on what I say and not on the newspapers. I am perfect ly sure of what I say. He asked for his superannuation and we granted his request. He pressed us because he was sick as the hon. gentleman must know and he could no longer fulfil the duties of his office.


James Clancy: Was there any marked increase in the business of that division ?


The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE.: No marked increase for a year or two past, except perhaps that caused by the establishment of one or two tobacco manufactories.


Nathaniel Boyd: I would like to know a little more in regard to this question of coal oil. I find on looking over the coal oil inspection matter that the date referred to by the hon. member for Alberta (Mr. Oliver) regarding the complaints was between the 20th and 30th of November. It seems that it took


Hon. Mr. BERNIER.: from that time until about the 24th of January before the cry which was broadcast, as has been stated by the hon. member and myself, throughout the country, could reach the ears of the department here. The papers, as I have already remarked, were full of it, and now, on the 15th March, the minister comes to this House and asks us to defer judgment until such time as the department is able to ascertain something further in regard to the complaints that have been made. There is no doubt, Mr. Chairman, about this at all. It is a scandal and there is no use in the government trying to get away from their responsibility by asking us to defer judgment, because they have had since the 24th of November last to find out about the quality of this coal oil. I would like to know the name of the man who inspected that oil and who permitted oil of that kind to come into the country. The Standard Oil Company have said that it was owing to the large tanks they stored it in, but we have learned that the same class of oil has been sold by that company to the people of North Dakota on the boundary line adjoining Manitoba, showing, beyond doubt, that the same class of oil was being supplied by that company to th* purchasers of oil in the adjoining districts. I think the least the hon. gentleman could do is to let the items stand until such time as he is able to give us more information than he has yet given us regarding this matter.


The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE.: I do not think I can give more information to the hon. gentleman than I can give tonight. I have already stated that I was not aware of the complaints in Manitoba and the North-west Territories. The first intimation we had in the department that there were complaints was about six weeks ago. A sample of the oil was sent down to the department and was analyzed and in order to give satisfaction to the people who had complained we ordered our inspector at Winnipeg, Mr. Barrett, to make a collection of samples of the oil throughout Manitoba and the North-west Territories, the said samples of oil to be analyzed by Mr. Ivenrick, and we are now waiting for the result of this analysis.


William James Roche: Is this analysis in regard to quality of the oil ? The law does not call for a test of quality. Is it not so that the present law does not demand an analysis so far as quality is concerned ? 1 think the hon. member for Macdonald (Mr. Boyd) has read the old law and the new law, and as he read it, in the new law there is no tests of quality.


The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE.: There was no test for quality in any law beyond a test for flash and gravity.


William James Roche: The hon. member for Macdonald read the old law as he

thought it appeared and it certainly called for a test of lighting quality. The hon. minister states that this law was changed at the instigation of the people of Manitoba in order that they should secure cheaper coal oil. They certainly did not get what they asked for. They are paying just as much for their oil to-day as they were before the change. I think the hon. minister is wrong in stating that there has been no change in the law so far as the test as to quality is concerned. It is because of the change that inferior oil is coming into this country. The Standard Oil Company have admitted that the quality was inferior although they say it was limited to one or two tanks that were admitted at the port of Emerson. The oil has been of the most inferior character and a great outcry has been raised through the west irrespective of politics. I may say that if the people asked for a change in the law for the sake of getting good oil at a reasonable price, they have failed in their purpose because they have got inferior oil.


Mr. PUTTEE.: May I ask the hon. minister if it is possible that oil may pass the inspection for flash and gravity and still be ferior for illuminating purposes ?


The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE.: It may be.


Arthur W. Puttee: So that the law in no way protects us as to the burning quality of the oil ?


The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE.: It is the same as in the past.


Frank Oliver: It seems a remarkable thing that when oil exists for the purpose of giving illumination the question of the illuminating quality of the oil is not provided for in any test that is made. We do not care so much about the flash test, or the gravity of the oil ; what we want to know is whether it will give light when it burns. As a matter of fact, a large part of the oil that was supplied in Manitoba and the North-west Territories during the past winter would not give light and some of it would not even burn.
I actually have seen my lamp go out. It does not make any difference to us what the flash test is, or what the gravity is so long as the illuminating power of the oil is not there. I am astonished to hear the Minister of Inland Revenue say that this condition of affairs did not come to the knowledge of his department until six weeks ago. If that is the fact it is high time that the Inland Revenue staff in Manitoba and the North-west should be changed from beginning to end; from top to bottom. We want men in the employ of the Inland Revenue Department and in the other departments of the government as well, who are aware of the facts that are transpiring around them and who understand what 37*
their responsibility is to the public, as well as to the department itself. If they thick that their only business is to dra'w their salaries I would like them wakened up from that idea. The grounds on which we vote then- salaries here at any rate is, that their business is to look after the protection of the public and if they have not informed the head of the department of this condition of affairs which has been a matter of universal comment throughout Manitoba and the North-west Territories for the last five months, it seems to me they should be called sharply to account.


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER.: Carried.


Nathaniel Boyd: Not yet. It seems that the department has no information on this matter and so we will try to supply them with some. They do not seem to know anything about it, so it is just as well to tell the minister all we know about it. I wish to ascertain if it is true, that the Standard Oil Company, now that they are permitted to import oil in tank vessels and otherwise control the oil business of this country ; is it true that they are selling their best refined oil to-day in foreign countries where they have to meet competition, and that they are passing off on the people of the North-west a quality of illuminating oil that some years ago they sold as fuel oil. That is what they are doing. They are sending their best oil to Europe to compete with the Russian oil, but as they completely control the markets of Manitoba and the North-west they are selling us their worst quality of oil, and they are allowed to do this under the inspection of the government, and with the approval of the government officers. We have shown here tonight that the people of the west have been imposed on and have been robbed in this connection.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: The hon. gentleman is under the impression evidently, that there has been a change in the regulations concerning the quality of oil. The officers of the department state that there has been no Such change, and certainly I am not aware of such a change. It has not been the policy of any government, as I understand it, to determine the quality of the oil in the sense in which the word has been used here. The safeguards are against oil of a dangerous character being used. That has been the main purpose of the checks surrounding the sale of petroleum.


Nathaniel Boyd: I do not think the Minister of Finance would say that if he had the old Act at hand, and read the clause


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I have not the Act, but my hon. friend has, and if he will read it he will find it is quite consistent with what I say. I am informed that the only place where the word quality is used is with reference to the

marks on tlie barrels; that the quality and quantity shall correspond with the marks on the barrel and the marks on the barrel allude to the quantity, the specific gravity and the flash test. The essence of the whole question is, whether there has been a change in the law respecting the quality of the oil, and the officers who are well informed on the subject say there has been no change whatever, and that it was not the policy of any previous administration to determine the illuminating power of the oil. There are thousands of things sold in Canada which are not up to the standard, nor always up to sample even, but they are not in all cases inspected by the government. If a man buys an inferior article and pays a high price for it he is wronged, but that is not the fault of the government. It may be that there should be some wider law on the subject ; it may be that the illuminating power should be guaranteed ; it may be that the quality of flour and fish and various things which are inspected only iii a limited way, should be guaranteed; but whether or not that be the case, the point is that there has been no change in the law with respect to the quality of the oil.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: How is it then, that bulletins are frequently issued by the Department of Inland Revenue giving the results of the examinations of such articles as pickles, butter, cheese, mustard, &c. It is possible that under the present law the power does not exist in the department to cause an inspection to be made of this illuminating oil. I understood from the Minister of Inland Revenue that that inspection had not been made once in the district of Montreal, and I understand further that he maintains that it cannot be made under the law as it at present exists. Is there a law governing the inspection of the articles which I have mentioned, but which restricts the department from inspecting coal oil ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: The articles mentioned by the hon. gentleman are articles of food, and there is a law with respect to the adulteration of food.
Mr. OSLEIt. Ret me read this clause from the old Act, and I think that you will find that it contradicts what the Minister of Finance has said :
The quantity and quality of imported petroleum so imported i'l each package shall be ascertained Ly weighing and testing by the inspector.
That does not mean that the inspection Is merely to ascertain what marks are on the package, but it says that the oil itself is to be inspected as to its quality.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I am informed that the word ' quality ' there as read in connection with another section has reference to the marks on the barrel.


Hon. Mr. FIELDING.: 


Mr. OSLER.: That surely cannot be the meaning of the clause.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: My hon. friend has the Act there and I have not. I am assured by the officers who are supposed to know all about it, that there has been no change whatever in the Act with regard to the inspection as to the quality of the oil. It has not been the practice to do more than to ascertain that the oil was of the gravity and flash test required. Whether or not there should be the power to further inspect as to quality is a fair question for discussion.


Richard Blain: Do I understand the Minister of Finance to say that at no time has there been a test made to determine the illuminating power of the oil ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: It has not been the practice of the department to guarantee the illuminating power of the oil, and there has been no change in the law in that respect in recent years.


Richard Blain: Prior to the introduction of the new law, tests were made and these tests were stamped at the end of the barrel. Could the minister tell the House what these stamps indicated ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: The usual marks for quantity and the test for specific gravity and safety are on the barrel, but there is no mark certifying to the illuminating power.


William James Roche: In the investigation which is now going on by the department, are you testing the illuminating power of the oil ?


The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE.: Yes.


Mr. TAYLOR.: In view of the statements made by the members from the North-west Territories and Manitoba, will the minister make a regulation or have the Act so amended as to prevent people from selling an adulterated article.


Mr. SCOTT.: The remarks of the last speaker (Mr. Taylor), strike the nail on the head. It seems to be somewhat an academic question whether any change has been made in the regulations, or whether it is possible under the present law to remedy the defect. If it is not possible to apply the present law for the protecetion of the people in this matter, would it not be possible for this House to confer upon the government, power to apply a remedy ? With regard to many articles of merchandise, which are not subject to inspection, the public are protected by competition ; but there is not competition in coal oil in the North-west. A monopoly has control of the .whole market, and if the government cannot afford protection to the people against the poor article which without any shadow of doubt has

been fraudulently sold to them during the past few months, then they are without any protection whatever.


Richard Blain: It seems to be very difficult for the members to understand the change which has been made in the law. Will the hon. minister be good enough to read to the House the old law and the new clause, so that the House will understand the change that has been made ?


The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE.: I will have the law in a few minutes ; but in the meantime, in answer to my hon. friend from Leeds (Mr. Taylor), I may say that the moment the department heard that there were complaints, we instructed our officer in Manitoba to collect samples in order to ascertain the quality of the oil, and I think it is only just and fair to await the result of that investigation, when the law, if necessary, will be amended.


George Taylor: I presume my hon. friend will have the result of that investigation before the House rises-in time to amend the law.


The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE.: Yes, within a couple of weeks.


Nathaniel Boyd: I wish to draw the attention of the House to the fact that it was about three months after the complaints commenced that we are told the department took action. The manager of the Standard Dil Company stated in an interview with the iiress that instructions had been given by their company to withdraw all the inferior oil. Now, the government proposes to take samples of the oil offered for sale after giving the company, as it would seem, plenty of time to withdraw all the inferior oil from the market. I asked the minister to-night if samples were taken from the tanks, and he answered me no. That shows the untenable position the government occupy in this matter.


William James Roche: I would like to ask the minister how long it is since the investigation began, who conducted it, and how soon it is expected to be ended and the report handed in ?


The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE.: I have already stated that about six weeks ago we received some complaints. Immediately we ordered that a sample of the oil be sent to the department. A sample was sent. We heard something further about the matter, and we immediately instructed our officer in Winnipeg, Mr. Barrett, to collect samples, and have an analysis made by Mr. Kenrick. Under these circumstances, I think it would not be fair to the officers of the department to act as if they had not done their duty. I regret that the hon. member for Alberta (Mr. Oliver) says that these officers should be dismissed. What would be the use of dismissing them and replacing them with men Mr. MONK.
of less experience, who would be in the same position, that is, prevented from doing what my hon. friend asks us to do, bearing in mind that the law does not permit us to go any further at present.


William James Roche: The minister states that it is only right that we should await the report of this investigation before we have any amendment made to the Act.
I do not think that is necessary at all. That is equivalent to saying that he does not know whether there has been spurious oil sent into the country or not. Surely it is not a spurious agitation which has taken place all over the North-west. The Standard Oil Company themselves admit that they have sent in inferior oil. What better proof do you want than that ? They say only a limited quantity was sent in ; but I think they underestimate the quantity. The oil sent in during the last few months lias been spurious without any doubt, and I think it is not necessary to await the report of this investigation before amending tlie Act. The Act should be amended right away, without waiting for the report of Mr. Barrett or any one else, because it has been stated here by members on both sides of the House that the oil is inferior in illuminating power.


The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE.: I think my hon. friend has misunderstood me. I have positively stated that we expect the report of the analysis within two weeks, and then we shall be ready to take action. I think the House will be still sitting at that time, and we shall have ample time to change the law, if it is found necessary. With regard to these complaints in the North-west, there was no complaint made except at the time I have already stated. It may be that the hon. gentlemen who represent Manitoba and the Territories may have heard more than I heard myself ; but that is no fault of the department, and we acted as soon as any complaint reached us, which was about six weeks ago.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I would like to ask tlie minister if the Act, Chapter 102 of the Revised Statutes of Canada, 1886. ' an Act for the Inspection of Petroleum,' has been changed?


The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE.: Yes, it has been.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: If it has been changed, it can only have been changed in such a manner as to extend the powers of inspection of the department. I have not read tlie Act over with attention, but I have no doubt that the fire test has not been changed.
The expression fire test or burning means the ignition and continuous burning ot any fluid hereinafter referred to, on1 the application of a light or spark under regulations established by this Act.
That has not been changed, and with such a statutory condition as that, there is no

doubt that the department itself possesses power to make regulations for the naming of an inspector to remedy the evil mentioned by the hon. members from the Northwest. If that is the case, then the department is at fault, and the suggestion made by one of the hon. minister's own friends, that the whole staff ought to be dismissed, including the head-because he said from top to bottom-should be carried out.


Thomas Walter Scott: It seems from the statements made by the minister so far that action on the part of the government depends on the report that may be made by the officers after their investigation of certain samples which they have collected. If it should turn out, however, as the hon. member from Macdonald (Mr. Boyd) suggested, that the officers procured samples of good oil, then we have to take it that the department will feel justified in not taking any action at all. It seems to me that the evidence given by several members on the floor of the House to-night should be sufficient for the department. I can give the hon. minister my own word, from painful personal experience, as to the very bad character of some of the coal oil that was sold in the North-west during the last few months. I have attempted to read newspapers by lamp light produced by some of this oil, and it was almost totally impossible to do so. I believe the stuff would freeze readily at zero, and I believe that more profanity has been caused in western Canada by this bad oil during the last few months than was caused even by the grain blockade we were talking about on Monday. I know that nothing less will satisfy the people of that country than a definite statement by the government that they intend to protect the public in this matter. As I have said, the coal oil trade there is in the hands of a monopoly ; there is no competition to protect the people, and the conditions during the past season have shown the necessity for the inspection going farther than it has gone, so that the purchaser may know that the article he buys will give the expected light.


Mr. BARKER.: I think that if the minister had complied with the request made to him to read the clause, as to the inspection under the old Act, and the new clause we might have been saved some time and discussion. Is the minister prepared to do that now ? If the two Acts are as stated in the paper that has been read from on this side, then, it is quite clear that the old Act was sufficient for the purpose. When you are testing illuminating oil, I presume the first thing is to test its illuminating qualities.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: There is another paragraph in the clause.


Samuel Barker: That is the reason that I am asking that the old section shall be read as well as the new one. If the old section is Mr. MONK,
as quoted on this side, it seems sufficient, and the new clause is not sufficient for the purpose.


The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE.: That there may be no misapprehension in the mind of any hon. member, I will read the whole of section 7 :
The quantity and quality of imported petroleum or nap'nt'ia in each package shall be ascertained by weighing and testing by the inspector, and the allowance of the tare of the package shall be in accordance with the departmental regulation in that behalf.
And section 14 provides :
Every refiner, manufacturer or importer of petroleum or naphtha, and every person who deals in or keep? or offers any petroleum or naphtha for sale shall be responsible as to its quality and as to the quantity contained in each package that the same shall not be inferior to the quality uor less than the quantity designated by the marks and descriptions then on the packages in which it is contained. All of which marks and descriptions the person in whose possession it is shall maintain in a perfectly legible state.
The last part was amended.


Samuel Barker: Will the hon. minister read the last part in section 7 after the word ' inspector ' ?


The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE.: I will read it all :
The quantity and quality of imported petroleum or naphtha in each package shall be ascer-ta'ned by weighing and testing by the inspector, and the allowance for the tare of the package shall be in accordance with the departmental regulations in that behalf.


Richard Blain: What is the departmental regulations in that behalf ?


The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE.: It is the regulation which was in force before the law was amended.


Samuel Barker: Can the hon. minister tell us what they were ?


The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE.: It was that it should be inspected by weighing and testing by the instruments that were described in the regulation.


Samuel Barker: It seems to me that the request made by some hon. gentleman from the North-west that this matter should be allowed to stand until we have an opportunity to look further into the question is a reasonable one. In view of the difficulty we have had in ascertaining what the law is, I think we ought to be granted that grace.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I do not see how allowing the item to stand can affect the general question which has been raised as to the desirability of a better inspection law. That is a fair question for discussion, but I do not see how it can be affected by this item or how a good purpose can be saved by having the item stand.


Samuel Barker: The question is not so much what the law is, as it is whether the department has been at fault in, not making a proper inspection in that, in inspecting illuminating oil, the one point they did not inspect was its illuminating quality. Before this money is voted for the department, we want to see whether the department is at fault or not.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: The hon. minister has made a very positive statement-and I believe that there is no dispute about the fact-that there has never been an inspection of that particular character. The question is somewhat technical, and I do not offer any opinion of my own upon it. But I am informed by those who ought to know that the marks upon the package showing the gravity and the flash test are enough to enable those who understand these matters to work out the illuminating power. But, if the illuminating power does not result, there is some defect somewhere.


Samuel Barker: The hon. minister seems to think that because a thing was never done before complaint was made, that is a reason why it should not be done after complaint has been made.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Not at all.


Samuel Barker: That is the result of the hon. gentleman's argument. I do not understand that, in times past, the people of the North-west have had oil which would not burn or would not give light. A few mouths ago they got that kind of oil and complaints were made. And, those complaints having been made, the department should have ascertained the grounds for them.


The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE.: I think it would be of no use to have the item stand. For, if it takes two weeks before we can ascertain what kind of oil is used in the North-west, the House will have uo opportunity of discussing this question any more. I have already stated that, since the law was first enacted that law was found workable. About six weeks ago we heard complaints. Were we derelict in our duty ? No, we acted as soon as we heard those complaints. They may have reached members of this House from the North-west before they reached us. 1 do not say those hon. gentlemen were derelict in their duty, but I do say that if we had been sooner informed of their complaints we could have taken action sooner. But, the moment we were informed that complaints were made in the North-west, we took action and had samples sent here to be tested, and I immediately ordered that samples should be collected for analysis. How can we change the law if we do not know in what sense it should be changed ? It is very well for these gentlemen to say- and I do not say that their information is
inaccurate-that the oil sold is of inferior quality, but we want to have the evidence by way of a more strict inspection. I have already said, and I repeat, that, as soon as we see that a change in that law is necessary in order to protect the people in Manitoba and the North-west, with the assistance of the hon. gentlemen from the North-west, we will make the law to meet the case and give satisfaction to the people. I cannot say more. I have no objection to the discussion of the item. But I regret that, not being master of the English language,
I do not seem to make myself well understood. If I cannot convince my hon. friends by using their language, perhaps I shall be obliged to use my native French.


George Taylor: The minister assured us that if he ascertained that it is necessary, he will have the law amended. But I thiulc he went just a little too far when he said that the law would be so amended as to give the people satisfaction. That I do not think he can do, because our friends from the North-west say just what we on this side said in 1897. I spoke pretty strongly on that myself. When the government came down with a Bill to amend the law as it then stood permitting the Standard Oil Company to come into this country with their tank vessels and tank ships, we opposed it; and when a gentleman from that side of the House who was interested in the Canadian oil industry-I refer to the late Judge Lister-got up and threatened to oppose the government if they went on with the legislation, it was dropped. I said then that the Standard Oil Company were just getting what they had paid for, because they had made a large contribution to the election fund in 1890.


Mr. CALVERT.: You ought to know.


George Taylor: To my hon. friends opposite, who promised the legislation. However, the government withdrew the measure that year. By the next year the late Judge Lister had been removed to the bench, he was not in the House to make any opposition, and then the government came down and carried out the bargain they had made with the Standard Oil Company previous to the election. They introduced and put through that Bill that we said would give the monopoly that our friends in the Northwest say now they have got. They got just what the government had bargained for. We told them when they changed that law and let the Standard Oil Company into this country, that it would drive out the Canadian industry, and that they would get control of our market. They have got it, and they are getting now just what they bargained for when this government sold the country to the Standard Oil Company.


Richard Blain: Do I understand the minister to say that under the old system of in-

spection and stamping on the end of the barrel, one of those stamps indicated the quantity of oil in the barrel ?


The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE.: Yes.


Richard Blain: Under the old system, then, all the coal oil that was brought in from the United States to Canada came in small barrels holding about 40 gallons. On the end of each barrel were these stamps, one stamp indicating the quantity of oil contained in the barrel. As I understand now, since the change has been made, most of the oil coming in from the United States comes in large tanks. For illustration, it comes Into the city of Toronto in large tanks. There are many towns within a radius of 50 miles of Toronto where there is no distributing tanks going through the town. When these towns get their oil which is sent from Toronto by the Standard Oil Company In small barrels, the same kind of barrels as was used before the change in the law, will the minister be good enough to tell us what system of inspection they now have, so that the retail merchants may know the quantity of oil contained in the barrel that he now gets under the new regulations ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: On one point the hon. gentleman is mistaken, in saying that prior to that change in the law till oil was brought in in barrels. The oil was brought in under the old system in tank cars as well as in barrels, but not in tank steamers. There were other minor matters, but the material change in the law was to the effect that if you could bring in oil in tank ears in the western part of the Dominion, you might be allowed to bring it in in tank ships in the eastern part of the Dominion.


Richard Blain: The effect was that every gallon of oil used in the western part of the province of Ontario was brought in in small barrels.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: No, it was brought in in tank cars, largely.


Richard Blain: Brought in in tank cars prior to the change of the law in 1899 ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: It was brought in in tank ears in large quantities, and was only put in barrels after it was imported into the country.


Richard Blain: There was an inspection, then, and the inspection was stamped upon the end of the barrel, and now there is no inspection. That is the change, is it ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: There is an inspection, but it is not stamped.


Robert Laird Borden: Why is it not stamped ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: I am not an expert in coal oil, but I have just read Mr. BLAIN.
the statute, and here is the conclusion to which I have come with respect to the requirements of the statute. Under the old system all coal oil was brought into the country either in small packages, in barrels, or it was brought in in tank cars. The oil brought in in tank cars, before it could be sold, had to be barrelled. When barrelled it was inspected, and the result of the inspection with respect to the flash test and the gravity was stamped on the end of the barrel. Under the new law which is in force since 1899, oil may be imported in tank cars, or in.barrels, and in tank ships. The difference between the old law and the present law is that, instead of insisting upon the oil being barrelled before it is offered for sale, it is now permissible to sell the oil by the gallon from the tank car, or from the tank ship, or from the barrel. The inspection is made, but the result of the inspection is not stamped on the barrel. That is the difference, as I understand it, reading the two statutes.
Mr: BORDEN (Halifax). I am not familiar with the statute, but it seems to me a rather singular provision that there should be an inspection of the oil in barrels, and that the result should not be stamped upon the barrel.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: The inspection would be made before the oil is put in the barrel.


Robert Laird Borden: But here you have a barrel containing a certain measure-able article that has undergone inspection. I am not at all suggesting that the Minister of Justice was wrong about it, but merely suggesting that it seems to me a remarkable provision that there should be an inspection, and that the public should not be made aware, by some mark upon the package containing the article, that there has been an inspection and what the results are. I do not know when such a measure passed the House, but I am bound to say I do not think it is a very wise provision of this legislature or of any other legislature, to have an inspection without announcing the result upon the package.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: The inspection we have now is absolutely the same inspection as that which was in force previous to 1899-the one inspection, both as to dash test and gravity.


Robert Laird Borden: There is a difference in this respect, that formerly the result was on the package and now it is not.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: Yes, we have to assume that to be the case, that there is no information conveyed to the public in respect to the result of the inspection. Of course the inspection has taken place in order to ensure the safety of the public. The inspection by the customs official is ample for the purpose.


Mr.   BOSS@Ontario: It is very distressing to liear the complaints from the North-west regarding coal oil, and I am sure we are all extremely sorry that they are in the dark up there. I would suggest that the western members move down to Ontario where we have good coal oil. I happen to be a dealer in coal oil, among other things, and can vouch for the quality of the oil that is delivered in Ontario. We used to buy it altogether for retail use in barrels, now It is delivered in tanks, and we have to take the word of the wholesale dealer who sells it to us. His wagon comes around to our shops, and he fills up our tank, and we suppose it to be of the proper gravity, and flash, and everything of proper quality. We have no complaints regarding it. Our people are well satisfied with regard to the quality of the coal oil ; and I think in that respect, at any rate, the matter is quite satisfactory to the people of Ontario. I can well understand though that if a dealer chose to be dishonest, if he took coal oil from the tank and put it in the barrel without having it properly marked by an inspector, there might be an invasion of the law there. I rose to say that the present mode of delivery of coal oil In Ontario is quite satisfactory to the- dealers and to the public.


Richard Blain: Do I understand the hon. gentleman to say that now the system is that tank wagons come around and deliver the coal oil ?


Mr. ROSS (Ontario).: Yes, they come around our way.
Mr. BLAIN The hon. member lives at Port Perry ; does the tank call at his town?


William Ross: Yes.


Richard Blain: And at other towns in the riding of South Ontario ?


William Ross: Yes.


Richard Blain: All the other towns ?


William Ross: I do not know that.


Richard Blain: All I have to say is that the town in which I live Is very much larger' In population than Port Perry It is marvellous how much these hon. gentlemen know about population, and how little about coal oil. Although the town of Brampton where I live has a very much larger population than Port Perry, every gallon of oil sold in that town comes in in barrels the same as it did for the last 20 years.


Mr. HOLMES.: You are behind the age.


Mr. CAMPBELL.: The hon. member for Peel (Mr. Blain) knows as much about coal oil as he does about binder twine. I had occasion to hear his observations on binder twine a few weeks ago and I think it would enlighten the House very much if he would repeat his discourse upon that very important subject before the hon. members of this
House. There seems to be some fault found with the hon. Minister of Inland Revenue and with the department because coal oil is not tested for its illuminating qualities. It is well understood that the quality of oil depends upon two conditions, first, on its specific gravity, and second, on the flash test. Upon the specific gravity depends the illuminating quality of the oil and on the flash test depeuds safety from explosion. When you have these two tests, as was mentioned by the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Fielding), you certainly have an assurance of the illuminating quality of the oil, because, having the specific gravity and flash test, you will find in these the illuminating qualities of - the oil. I may say that the test of Canadian oil as to specific gravity is 791 as compared with water at 1,000, while the test of American oil is, for its specific gravity, 784 as compared with 1,000 of water.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: May I ask the hon. member (Mr. Campbell) what he is reading from ?


Archibald Campbell: What does it matter to you ?


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I ask the hon. gentleman to state what he is reading from ?


Archibald Campbell: Are you prepared to state that what I am reading is not correct ?


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I submit to you, Mr. Chairman, that we have a right to know what the hon. gentleman is reading from ?


Archibald Campbell: I am reading from notes.


Peter Macdonald: Order. I think an hon. gentleman is allowed to read from the notes he has before him without having to tell the committee what he is reading, just as any hon. gentleman can read the notes which he has prepared containing any figures that he has put down, and therefore, if he says these figures are before him in the form of notes, he has a perfect right to read them.


Nathaniel Boyd: Mr. Chairman, it is not the rule of the House ?


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order, order.


Archibald Campbell: I was interrupted


Peter Macdonald: No hon. gentleman can be interrupted against his will.


Robert Laird Borden: He may rise to a point of order.


Peter Macdonald: Yes.


Archibald Campbell: I am only making these statements to show that the best samples of Canadian oil are superior to those of American oil at the present time. There has been a very great improvement in the quality of oil in the last few years and now the best quality of Canadian oil is equal to

and better than the best quality of American oil. It may be that there was poor oil sent into the North-west Territories.


Nathaniel Boyd: It was not Canadian oil at all.


Archibald Campbell: I am not prepared to say whether it was Canadian or American oil, but I am sure the position taken by the hon. Minister of Inland Revenue ought to satisfy the committee, inasmuch as he has now under investigation the complaints that were made to his department and as he assures the committee that within two weeks the result of this investigation will be known and that upon the result being known action will be taken. Surely, to my mind, that ought to satisfy the committee that the department is alive to its duty and has the interest of the public at heart.


Richard Blain: I did not quite understand the hon. gentleman's figures in respect to the flash test, &e. Would he be good enough to repeat them again to the committee ?


Archibald Campbell: I gave you a comparison as between Canadian and American oils.


Richard Blain: It is then in respect to the flash test ?


Archibald Campbell: The specific gravity.


Richard Blain: Oh, the specific gravity. I understood the hon. gentlemiTh to say that he referred to the illuminating qualities of the oil. Was that correct ?


Archibald Campbell: On the specific gravity depends the illuminating quality of the oil.


Richard Blain: Then, I understood him correct^. Now the hon. gentleman tells the committee that the specific gravity that was formerly stamped on the end of'the barrel indicated the illuminating quality of the oil. The hon. Minister of Finance has told the committee that there never was any inspection in respect to the illuminating quality of the oil.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I did not say anything of the sort.


Richard Blain: What did the hon. gentleman say ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I did not say that the illuminating power of the oil, in these terms, was stamped on the barrel, but I did say that when you get specific gravity and the flash test both correctly, I was informed that they produce the illuminating power,and that any one who understood it might have indicated to him the illuminating power of the oil, but there was no specific mark in these terms that the illuminating power of the oil was so much. It had to be deduced from these figures, as I have been informed.


Richard Blain: The fact is that at this present time, under the new regulations, there Mr. CAMPBELL.
is no test for the reason that there is nothing stamped on the end of the barrel. The changed regulations do not give an opportunity for the dealer or the consumer to know anything at all of the illuminating quality of the oil. The hon. member for West York has been good enough to read myself a lecture in respect to binder twine. I wish he would be good enough to read the House a lecture in respect to counting ballots of voters who voted four or five times in his last election. I was delighted with his remarks in his county in his recent election in respect to what an ardent protectionist he was, and with his promise that the minute he reached the House he would enter a complaint against the government for their failure to give more protection and that he would ask them to put the tariff up higher.


Archibald Campbell: I would ask the hon. gentleman (Mr. Blain) where that was ?


Richard Blain: I do not wonder that the hon. gentleman asks that question, because he changes his policy so quickly that he does not remember. It depends entirely on where he made the statement, as to what the statement would be. We understand that very well. He was a free trader at one time and now he is a high protectionist.


Peter Macdonald: As each hon. member has departed from the rules of order and as each has had his way, I hope both will be good enough to come now to the consideration of the item under discussion.


Robert Laird Borden: It would be just as well to stop it at the beginning and not at this juncture.


Frank Oliver: I understood two hon. members to say, the hon. Minister of Finance, and the hon. member for West York, as with authority, that the flash test ensured safety and the specific gravity ensured illuminating power, or if I am not stating it correctly, that the two tests together, the flash test and the specific gravity test, ensured illuminating power. Am I right ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I did not state it as on authority. I said I was informed.


Frank Oliver: 
James Clancy: 1 am very sorry, Mr. Chairman (Mr. Campbell) that you have been asked to take the chair at this moment because I was left in a very painful state of uncertainty.
The hon. gentleman (Mr. Campbell) read carefully from a paper, and even though he would not disclose his authority, the statement was a very important one. I remember when the hon. gentleman (Mr. Campbell) held a very different view as to the quality of Canadian coal oil. He told us to-night that the specific gravity and the flash test of the Canadian oil was much higher than that of the American oil and that therefore Canadian oil was better. It is not very long since the hon. gentleman (Mr. Campbell) went about the country contending that the American oil was infinitely superior to the Canadian oil, that our people were slaves paying tribute to the oil kings of Canada and that the duty should be taken off oil. I am not quite sure that he did not even carry a gallon of coal oil in his hand to demonstrate his contention. Well, it is a good thing if the hon. gentleman has been converted, and we are glad to know now from him that the American oil was never as good as Canadian oil, and that he was all wrong about that in the past. Whether the law has been changed or not, enough has been said here to-night to warrant this matter receiving the serious attention of the government. I am glad to hear from the Minister of Inland Revenue that it is the intention of the government after full inquiry to see that no inferior oil is put on the market so far as it is possible for the department to guard against it.


The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE.: I have already given that assurance.


Robert Holmes: I understood the hon. member (Mr. Blain) to argue that the oil which was supplied in Western Ontario came in in small barrels as it formerly did. Although the town of Brampton may be in darkness to the extent of receiving oil in barrels at the present day, it is a fact that generally throughout Western Ontario, the oil is delivered in tank wagons from tank supply centres. I cannot speak for the consumers, because I do not use oil myself, but so far as the retail dealers are concerned in the counties of Huron and Bruce with which I am most familiar, they endorse very cordially the present system and speak of the law as being thoroughly satisfactory.


Richard Blain: Would the minister inform the House what flash light specific gravity means in respect to illuminating quality. Surely the minister in charge of the department should understand that.


An hon. MEMBER.: That has been asked a dozen times.


Richard Blain: Some hon. gentleman says that question has been asked a dozen times and I agree ; but the point is that we have not had an answer to the question.


The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE..: I must confess that I have not very extensive practical knowledge on the question of coal oil, and even my theories do not go very far. When I took charge of the department a certain law had been in force for eight years, and that law has not been altered since with regard to the quality of the oil. Let that be well understood. I may know a great many other things, but I cannot speak with ' connaissance de cause ' in regard to the quality of oil. What I have said, I repeat now, and that is, that after an experience of eight or ten years under different governments, if we find that the law is not sufficient to protect the public then we are prepared to change or amend the law-in that respect. I think that should be sufficient. It is not to be expected from me that I should enter into a scientific discussion of the quality or the purity of coal oil; but if I be in default on that I perhaps will have some one to teach me. Even if I have to repeat myself ten times. I think it is sufficient for the House that I should say that I took the law as it was ; the law which was operated by the same officer for ten years, and the very moment that we perceived that under the existing law we could not give satisfaction to the public, we took means to ascertain to what extent the public are suffering and we are prepared to remedy the defect. I cannot say more.


Richard Blain: A very large quantity of American oil comes to Toronto for distribution in Ontario. Would the minister tell us who inspects that oil ?


The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE.: AVhen it is imported to this country it is inspected by the customs officer, and when it is manufactured in Canada it is inspected by the inland revenue officer.


Richard Blain: AVhen is it inspected ?
The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE-When it crosses the frontier I suppose.


Richard Blain: Is there a stamp put on, the tank ?


The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE.: No.


Robert Laird Borden: Do not the Minister of Finance, as well as the Minister of Inland Revenue, think that it is a defect in the legislation that there should be that Inspection without any mark on the package to indicate tlfat there has been inspection and the result of the inspection? I am not sufficiently familar to the trade to know the details, but looking at the question in a general way it seems to me that the legislation is defective in that respect.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: The oil is imported in large packages and does not reach the consumer in that state. Though you put a stamp on the tank car it would be of very little value to the consumer, for he never gets it in a tank car. There is a heavy penalty on any person who sells coal oil in Canada which has not been inspected in the manner prescribed, and that is the protection which the public enjoys. I have been informed that until this recent matter cropped up in the North-west, there has been no complaint sent to the department.


Robert Laird Borden: How would it be possible to show under such a system, that any particular barrel of coal oil has or has not been inspected. If you mark the tank when you inspect it, and indicate the result of the inspection, then when that tank is emptied into barrels the proper officer could mark the barrels. It seems to me such a provision would afford better protection.


Mr. MCCARTHY.: What will happen to the man who buys a gallon ?


Robert Laird Borden: I am speaking of the process until you get to the retail dealer. Of course every gallon measure cannot be inspected. My hon. friend (Mr. McCarthy) will see that an objection of that kind is absurd.
Mr.. MCCARTHY. My objection is not at all factious. I simply recall the fact that it is the consumer that causes all the trouble about the inferior oil.


Robert Laird Borden: I am speaking of the inspection for the man who sells, and you must have marks of inspection on the packages so that the person who buys will have something to rely upon. It would be extremely difficult under the present system to prove that a single barrel of coal oil which bears no marks had been inspected.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: There is something in that, but the hon. gentleman (Mr. Borden) will see that he would have to follow It out down to the last gallon. The oil which is imported in tank cars or in tank ships does not always pass Into barrels. There are large standing tanks in certain places into which it is Mr. BLAIN.
passed, and then it is passed out again into other vessels. I am told that when oil is sold from a tank wagon which is the practice in western Ontario, a standard can is used which is of certified size and therefore there is protection as to quantity. However, the theory of the law is that any coal oil sold here shall not be unsafe." Of course if there is defective inspection as it has been suggested, that is another matter, but the theory of the law is that there shall be effective inspection in regard to what the law prescribes. If the oil be found on sale in Canada, the presumption is, in the absence of anything to the contrary, that it is safe and of the quality required by law; and I am afraid, though I can see the criticism which my hon. friend has applied to a particular case, that you have to risk the quality of the oil as you have that of any other- article of sale, when it comes up to the requirements of the law as to the flash test and the specific gravity.


Richard Blain: May I ask the minister if tank cars are allowed to come into every town in the province of Ontario ?


The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE.: Yes, at every port or out-port of entry in Canada.
Mr.- BOYD. I would like to ask the minister, in case the report of his officers should be that the oil they have taken for inspection from the several merchants in Manitoba is good, whether he will take any action with regard to this matter ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: It will be within two weeks, the minister says, when that report will be before the House. If we were to-night to introduce a Bill to amend the Inland Revenue Act in that respect, we would not have it enacted within two weeks.


Nathaniel Boyd: That is not the question I asked at all.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Allow me. If the attention of the House be drawn to a defect in any law, the members of the government are bound to consider it and provide a remedy ; and while this analysis will be one element in the case, even if on other evidence it can be shown that the law is defective, the government will be bound to provide a remedy.


Nathaniel Boyd: The question I asked was whether any action would be taken if the report of the officers was that the oil was good.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: It is time enough to consider that when we have the evidence before us.


Nathaniel Boyd: The evidence given by the members from the North-west proves conclusively that bad oil was sold through that country. There is no question about it, and I have stated upon the floor of this House that the agent of the Standard Oil

Company himself admitted that the oil was had, and that they were withdrawing it from sale ; and about a month or six weeks after that an order was issued by the Department of Inland Revenue instructing their officers to inspect oil offered for sale. They are not likely to find any thing wrong with the oil offered for sale now.


Mr. STEPHENS.: I understand that the oil must come up to a certain test, whether it is in tanks or in barrels ; and if it comes up to this test, it makes no difference whether the stamp is on the barrel or not. It comes to a town in a car tank, and is pumped from that into a wagon tank carrying 200 or 300 gallons, and this is taken to the stores and is delivered to the dealers in 5-gallon or 10-gallon tanks belonging to them. I cannot see how the oil could get into the North-west without being properly inspected. It may have been that after crossing the border a dishonest dealer put water into it and then sold it to the farmers.
I understand that the law to-day is as it always has been; but the usage is different, the oil being taken to the dealers in tank wagons instead of in barrels.


James Clancy: The hon. gentleman is not right in supposing that the oil is subject to any test on crossing the border. I have the tariff item before me, and in it no test is provided for. The Minister of Inland Revenue stated that the customs collector inspected the oil. There is no evidence of that in the tariff ; he only collects the duty on the number of gallons brought in.


George Stephens: I may state that I myself have purchased oil on more than one occasion, and before I could get it delivered, it had to be inspected by the customs officer, and I got from him a certificate stating that the oil was equal to the flash and the gravity test required by law. He had an instrument to test the oil himself.


The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE.: In answer to the hon. member for Bothwell (Mr. Clancy) I may say that according to section 16 of the Act, all imported oils must be inspected by the customs officer at the port of entry designated by the Governor in Council.


Richard Blain: Will the minister give us a list of the ports in the province of Ontario that are so designated ?


The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE.: Every port where there is a customs officer.


Nathaniel Boyd: I would like the hon. minister to answer the question I put to him, whether he is going to take action on the report of his officers or on the evidence brought before this House by the members from the North-west ?


Robert Laird Borden: I do not understand how it is possible to trace a quantity of oil which proves not to be up to the test,
and which may cause loss of life-to trace it to the proper officer and punish him for his neglect in not making a proper test.


Henry Robert Emmerson: Is that not an incident of the modern method of carrying on the oil business ?


Robert Laird Borden: I dare say it may be, if you call this the modern method ; but I do not know that that is a very conclusive answer to what I am suggesting to the committee. I do not suppose that my hon. friend from Westmoreland, if he happened to be blown through the roof, and came down minus an arm or a leg, would imagine that that was a satisfactory answer when he brought an action against the inspector. Of course, my hon. friend is very philosophic in regard to others, but I desire to make a personal application of the matter to himself. It seems to me that if we have an inspection, we should have such safeguards as to enable us to fix the responsibility for non-inspection dn the officers of this government.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Granting that that is the question, is it not almost inevitable ? It would be the same if it were a case of inspection of food, a man having been poisoned. It would be no great comfort to him to know that there had been inspection, which had been evaded. Yet, the inspection of food is on the whole, a good thing; and so the inspection of oil, on the whole, is a good thing. Each, in the main, works out its purpose, but there may be instances of failure, as is alleged in this case.


Robert Laird Borden: But the hon. minister does not understand my point. When you had a system of compulsory inspection of fish in Nova Scotia-it is not compulsory now-when a dealer bought a barrel of fish, he had the stamp of the officer upon it. The person who bought it had a remedy against the officer, if the fish was not up to the standard. But that is a circumstance which seems wanting here. I am not prepared to say that it cannot be overcome, but I suggest that it is a difficulty' that some effort ought to be made to overcome.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: But, to carry that out, you would have to deal with barrels and even with smaller parcels. These would be useful checks if it is possible to carry them out, but it may not be possible. The main iiurpose of the change, not as regards inspection test or specific gravity, but as regards handling the oil, was that it could be more cheaply transported and the necessity of barrelling it would be avoided-allowing it to be carried in tank cars instead of in small parcels. It was supposed that adequate inspection at the port of entry for importeu oil, and at the refinery for Canadian oil, would amply protect the public interest.


Edmund Boyd Osler: Is oil admitted at every port in Canada ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: At *every warehousing port. At first, there was a list of ports, but it was afterwards enlarged so as to include all warehousing imports.


Edmund Boyd Osler: As I understand it, there is an inspector at every port in Canada where coal oil is imported ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: The inspection, I am informed is not a difficult matter. The officer has to weigh the oil, and an instrument is supplied for making the Hash test


Edmund Boyd Osler: That is the case in every port of entry where oil comes into Canada now ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: So the officer of the department informs me.


Edmund Boyd Osler: I am informed that Wallace-burg is a port of entry and that it receives oil, yet there is no one but the customshouse officer there, and there is no inspection.


George Stephens: I think the hon. gentleman (Mr. Osier) is wrong. That is not a customs port.


Edmund Boyd Osler: I understand that oil is received there constantly.


George Stephens: Not direct.


Richard Blain: As I understand the Minister of Finance, oil is admitted at every port where there is a warehouse.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: At every port which is known in the department as a warehousing port.


Richard Blain: Is Brampton, Ontario, a warehousing port ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I could not say. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Blain) himself is probably aware.


Richard Blain: I did not ask the question of the Minister of Finance.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I be" your pardon.


Richard Blain: I asked it of the minister of the department.
The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE I cannot answer the hon. gentleman's question. I have stated more than once that the customs officer has charge of the inspection of imported oil; my department has nothing to do with it .


Richard Blain: Will the minister give the House a list of the warehousing ports in Ontario where oil is received by tank ?


The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE.: I will ask the Minister of Customs to subtly that.


William Stevens Fielding: 


Richard Blain: There is a dispute among some of the members with respect to this matter. I understand that Port Perry and Clinton, which were mentioned by the hon. member for West Huron (Mr. Holmes) are not included among these ports. I think I am correct in that. Brampton, I understand, is not in this list of warehousing ports, and oil comes to that place in barrels, as under the old Act. But I think it is only fair to the committee that we should be supplied with a list of the ports for Ontario or for the Dominion.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: That will be brought down.


William Ross: I suppose the hon. member (Mr. Blain) will take my word for it that tank wagons visit Port Perry ?


Richard Blain: Yes.


William Ross: As I understand, we have been talking about oil imported from the United States. It is not against the law to bring oil from the United States in barrels, and it is still brought in that way, as well as in tanks. Dealers bring it in tanks to avoid the cost of transportation and leakage. Oil in tanks would bo inspected to see that it is all right The dealer would be responsible if it were reduced by adulteration. On the other hand, if an importer brought oil in ban-els, it would be the duty of the inspector to stamp the barrel. But it would be impossible to put a stamp on every gallon In a tank car. The tank car comes to a place where they have a large receiving tank, and, from this it is taken into the tank wagons and distributed throughout the country.


Richard Blain: Is Port Perry a port of entry ?


William Ross: No, Whitby is our port.


Richard Blain: Would the hon. gentleman state where this wagon gets its supply to take to Port Perry ?


William Ross: I think it comes from Toronto or from Whitby.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: If the special test ordered by the minister of the oil from the Northwest does not disclose the fact that the oil submitted to the test is faulty, then there will be no legislation, I suppose ?
The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE I did not say that. We will deal with the matter when the report comes in.


Samuel Barker: The hon. member for Alberta (Mr. Oliver) struck the nail upon the head. It is clear that a large quantity of petroleum was imported into the Northwest which was not an illuminating oil.
It is clear that that oil should not have entered this country for the purpose for which it was imported unless it could stand a certain test. It must be equally clear that the department passed that oil.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: Not at -all.


Samuel Barker: This is not a solitary case. This oil that would neither burn nor give light, was distributed over a large territory. There is a clause in the old Act, and, I presume, of the new, that the oil shall be inspected when it enters the country. This oil was undoubtedly inspected by the officer of the department, yet, it is clear that it could not stand the test required of an illuminating oil. What does he do ? He puts on the package certain figures, a certain flash test, a specific gravity ; and he knows whether the figures show that it is good illuminating oil. But the public do not know, they only see certain figures there. The inspector may send forward to the public oil that, on the face of it, is bad, and yet the public, unless they could get the hon. member for West York to travel around with his little paper and define to them whether the figures show good oil or not, are in perfect ignorance. If that is the effect of the statute, it ought to be altered, so that an inspector shall not pass any oil that does not stand the test for a good illuminating oil.


Edmund Boyd Osler: Regarding the statement I made just now, I am correct. Oil is brought into Wallaceburg in barrels and landed on the wharf without inspection. It pays customs duty, and is then free to be sent all over this country, no matter what the character of the oil may be. There is no inspection, there is no means of inspection. I understand the oil that is used in the Northwest is almost entirely supplied in barrels and not in tanks. Now it is quite possible there may be many ports like Wallaceburg where oil is delivered by boat, not tank oil but barrel oil, brought into this country and simply dumped on the wharf, where it pays duty, and is passed. It is passed now without any brand on the barrel. I understand in this way it is quite possible that large quantities of very inferior oil may be delivered in Canada and find its way to the North-west. I do not know that that is the case, but it is quite possible, and exceedingly probable; I think I am quite safe in saying that as regards this one port there is no inspection of oil delivered there in barrels.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: If the hon. gentleman's statement is correct it needs investigation, and I shall call the attention of the Minister of Customs to it. It is not the intention of the law, and it should not happen. Since the hon. gentleman makes the statement as a matter coming within his knowledge, the Minister of Customs will be bound to look into it and see what is the answer, if there be one.


George Stephens: The hon. member for Bothwell knows that Wallaceburg is not a port of entry, and that the oil supplied at
Wallaceburg is either entered at some other port probably Chatham, or is smuggled in. If entered at any other port it is inspected the same as it would be if it were in tanks.


James Clancy: I am surprised that the hon. member for Kent (Mr. Stephens) does not know that Wallaceburg is a port of entry. It is an astounding revelation to me. Wallaceburg has been a port of entry for more than 30 years, I venture to say for 40 years. There are several outports at Wallaceburg. The village of Sombra and the village of Tort Lambton are outports, and AVallaceburg is just as much a port of entry as the city of Chatham. If it is anything to boast of, it is quite as great as Chatham. What has been stated by the hon. member for Toronto (Mr. Osier) is perfectly true. I am not prepared to say whether instructions have been given the collector of customs there to make an inspection. But I have personal knowledge that oil is brought in from the United States, from Detroit and from little towns on the border, is entered with the collector of customs, and duty paid, and no attempt made at inspection. I am not now making a charge against the collector there, I do not know whether he had such instructions, but that has been the experience at that port, no doubt about it.


George Stephens: What I meant to say was that Wallaceburg was not a warehousing port. As the inspection of oil comes under the Customs Department, it could not be inspected at Wallaceburg.


Richard Blain: I would like to ask the minister if that regulation regarding stamps to go on the end of the barrel, has been abolished ?


The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE.: Yes.


Richard Blain: Then will the hon. gentleman state, when coal oil comes from the United States in small barrels, if it is tested, and by whom ?


The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE.: When it is imported in tanks, either in bar-rals or otherwise-I have already read the law-it must be inspected by the customs officer.


Frank Oliver: In order to relieve a part of the strain that appears to exist in regard to the regulations as to the inspection of oil from the United States, I beg to say that according to my best information the principal part of the oil of which complaint was made in the North-west, was Canadian oil ; it was brought in tank vessels to Port William, was placed in large tanks and barrelled there for distribution throughout Manitoba and the North-west.


James Clancy: Has the hon. gentleman knowledge of that ? The hon. gentleman

has made a very serious charge against the refiners of oil in Canada. I may tell him that they would have to send it in by tank cars, probably to the town of Sarnia in the first place, for shipment, and then they would have to re-ship it in tank vessels. Unless the hon. gentleman has personal knowledge of the accuracy of that statement, it is unfair to the oil producers in Canada.


Frank Oliver: I have no hesitation in taking the responsibility of stating that a large part of the oil complained of in the Northwest during the past five months was sold as Canadian oil.


James Clancy: That is another thing.


Frank Oliver: I did not follow the oil from the well to the lamp. But I can assure the hon. member that it was Canadian oil, and for the information of other hon. members I may say that Canadian oil holds a very bad pre-eminence in reputation in the Northwest. It is not considered to be as good as American oil. As a matter of fact, however, the oil brought to Fort William was there placed in large tanks and there barrelled for distribution throughout the North-west. That is the history of the greater part of the oil trade of the west.


James Clancy: I can tell the hon. gentleman that his information is entirely wrong. There is not a tank vessel owned by a single individual in Canada. When the hon. gentleman states that it has a bad reputation, I am afraid that it is owing entirely to his conduct in the past. He and his party decried Canadian oil for the purpose of making capital out of it as against American oil. The hon. gentleman, I am afraid, has given it a bad reputation and circulated the reputation throughont the country. I want to say to him that it is utterly unfair for the hon. gentleman to make the statement in this House that Canadian oil is sent in tank vessels to the upper lakes and then reshipped to the North-west. I think the hon. gentleman is utterly without a tittle of foundation for his statement, and I hope that he will soon acquire the necessary information and make the correction.


Frank Oliver: I will take the responsibility of stating here in this House, and now, that from Lake Superior to the Pacific Ocean, now and heretofore, the reputation of Canadian oil is absolutely inferior to that of American oil.


Nathaniel Boyd: In regard to the matter that has been referred to by the hon. member for Alberta (Mr. Oliver), I have this to say, that Mr. Sharpe, the present manager of the Standard Oil Company, certainly stated in his interview in the paper, as may be seen in the ' Telegram ' of about the 20th of November, and I heard his son on a public platform assert, that it was American oil. Now, Mr. Chairman, it is rather amusing to


James Clancy: listen to the flippant remarks of some hon. members from Ontario referring to us as being in the dark. We certainly were in the dark in 1896, and previously, regarding the party and the government that have had charge of the coal oil legislation for the past few years. I would like that my hon. friend had been with the premier when he traversed that country from the Red River to the Rocky Mountains, as no doubt the member for Alberta was, and had seen the placards on every wall where he spoke, and where he bewailed the position of the people of that country with regard to the coal oil tax, that he promised to wipe out immediately, and which he has so enormously reduced by one cent a gallon. Then certain arrangements were made whereby the Standard Oil Company was permitted to come into this country and get control of the market, as has been shown by members from both sides of the House, and that, Mr. Chairman, after the government was warned from this side of the House, warned, if I mistake not, by the late member for West York (Mr. Wallace), that what has happened would happen.
To provide for extra duty pay at large distilleries and other factories, $6,000.


The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE.: This vote is the same as last year, and for three or four years preceding.


James Clancy: How much of that vote of last year was spent ?


The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE.: Last year, out of that vote of 86,000, we expended 85,701.02.
Salaries of officers, inspectors and assistant inspectors of weights and measures, $55,100.


James Clancy: I think it is time now that we should have some explanation from the hon. Minister of Inland Revenue as to the conduct of his officers, because I fear, from the results we have had, that they have disobeyed the orders sent out by the department. Either the inspectors have been remiss in their duty or the hon. gentleman has modified the instructions that I am informed were sent to the inspectors throughout the country in regard to the use of what is known as the grain tester. I understand that a deputation waited on the hon. gentleman from the grain section of the board of trade of the city of Toronto and remonstrated against what they called a departmental regulation, but which, of course, was a statute instead of a departmental regulation. The hon. gentleman has not, apparently, taken great trouble to see that his officers have discharged their duty. I would like some declaration on the hon. gentleman's part making it perfectly plain, either that he is, as minister, utterly helpless to enforce the law by reason of the inspectors being remiss in their duty, or that the hon. gentleman is disposed to give a willing ear

118&
to those who are contending against the operation of such a law. I shall await the hon. gentleman's explanation of what is to me and to the whole country a very extraordinary state of affairs, namely, that there has been a law on the statute-book for something over five years, that the inspector who was instructed to enforce that law has not done so, and that so far as the inspection is concerned, it is absolutely and utterly a dead letter. 1 never knew a case where the law has been so completely ignored and I am sure the committee and the country will be delighted to know what are the underlying reasons for such an extraordinary state of affairs.


The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE.: I think I had better, in order that the committee may be in a position to discuss the matter more fully and with perfect knowledge, give a short history in regard to the question referred to by the hon. member for Bothwell (Mr. Clancy). Grain testers were admitted to verification by .Order in Council of August 20th, 1881. See circular No. 238. The Department of Justice decided in 1889 that grain testers were liable to inspection under the Weights and Measures Act. See circular G, 300, and copy of opinion of Department of Justice attached. In the spring of 1890, the department decided owing to the pressure from all points, to ask l'or the repeal of the Order in Council, permitting their verification. The farmers, on the one hand, urged that verification be not permitted, while boards of trade desired them to be admitted to inspection. By an Order in Council of June 7th, 1890, the previous order admitting grain testers to verification was repealed. See circular G 324. By 01 Vic., chap. 30, section 6, subsection 2, it was provided that ' no weighing machine used for weighing or determining the weights of any of the articles mentioned in section 10 of the Weights and Measures Act shall be of less certified capacity than one bushel.' See circular G 588, calling attention to the above quoted amendment and directing inspectors to acquaint persons who are using those measures, of the penalties attached for not complying with the law.
A circular was again issued by the department in September, 1901, calling attention, a further time, to the provisions of the Act 01 Vic., chap. 30. See circular G 023. The grain tester is used only to determine tlie weight of grain per bushel, not the actual weight of a given quantity offered for sale. It is, in fact, a test of quality, not of quantity, the grain so tested as to quality having subsequently to be weighed on verified scales when bought and sold. Until the amendment of 1898, the department took the stand that, as the grain, in respect of which the quality is determined by the tester, is sold by actual weight on legalized scales it had no right to interfere with the use of the tester, ns the seller can decline to accept the tester as an arbiter. It thus being an 38
unrecognized weighing machine no contract could be determined by it, but that nothing could prevent millers and others using it for their own information.


James Clancy: Does the hon. gentleman state that the law does not interfere with any persons attempting to make a test in any vessels of less than one bushel certified capacity ? The reading of the statute is just what the hon. gentleman said, but the hon. gentleman has expressed some view outside of the statute that I am not quite clear about.


The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE.: Until the amendment of 1898, the department took the stand that as the grain in respect of which the quality is determined by the tester is sold by actual weight on legalized scales it had no right to interfere with the use of the tester as the seller can decline to accept the tester as an arbiter.


Mr.   OLANGY@: Do I understand that to be a departmental regulation ?


The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE.: No.


James Clancy: How does the hon. gentleman arrive at the conclusion that since the grain is sold subject to being weighed on legalized scales the department could not prevent the use of the tester under such circumstances, because the seller might decline to have it tested. I want to say that there is no complaint against the test. The complaint is against the use of a tester of less certified capacity than one bushel. I do not understand that there has been any amendment of the Act of 1898 affecting that part of it :
No weighing machine used for weighing or determining the weights of any of the articles mentioned in section 16 of the Weights and Measures Act shall be of less certified capacity than one bushel.
The test is made so as to see that the wheat is standard, and if the wheat is below standard there is a scale fixed by which an arbitrary reduction is made on the price of each bushel. Whether grain is bought or sold, the person has absolutely no right to make a test with any tester of less certified capacity than one bushel. Judging by the remarks of the minister, I can well understand why the law has been absolutely ignored.


The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE.: Grain testers are used by the buyers to test the quality, and the seller is not bound to accept the decision of the buyer even after that test.


James Clancy: Yes, he is. At every mill door and warehouse door he had to accept it or turn his team back and take it home. In theory the minister is right, but as a matter of practice he is wrong.


The MINISTER OF INLAND REVEN HE.: I was always of the opinion, and I still hold the same opinion, that the least we intervene in private business the better.


James Clancy: Now, the country will understand for the first time the position of the minister.


The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE.: These tests were not the exact measure by which the quality or quantity was to be returned. I cannot understand why the seller would be bound to accept the terms of the buyer even if he had to take his grain home.


James Clancy: Quite so; no hardship in that.


The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE.: I do not understand how trade is conducted in the province of Ontario, but I know something of that matter in the province of Quebec. We use what we call a half bushel. If a farmer has 500 or 600 bushels of oats or peas for sale, he goes to the buyer and he says to him : I am ready to sell you 500 bushels of oats to be delivered within a month or two. When he has delivered the oats or peas the value is determined, not by the bushel, but by the weight according to law. That is the rule In the province of Quebec, and it is not to niy knowledge that any lawsuit was ever instituted because there was a misunderstanding between the parties. If the facts are as represented by my hon. friend (Mr. Clancy) I suppose it remains that we should change the law.


James Clancy: No. Enforce it.


The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE.: Perhaps it would be in order that a Bill should be introduced so that we may test the sentiment of the House and of the country.


James Clancy: The people who complain do not ask that the law should be altered, but they ask that it should be enforced. The minister proposes now to submit a Bill to the House to test public opinion on the question as to whether the present law should be enforced or not I cannot understand what the hon. gentleman means. I tell the minister that there is absolutely no complaint against the law, which is efficient; but there is a complaint that the law is not enforced. The minister says that he does not care to interfere with private transactions, but I tell him that this is a public transaction. So far as my knowledge goes, there is no such a thing as grain tests in the United States or in any other province of the Dominion except Ontario. I am not opposed to the test. If I were engaged in the grain business I think I should want to determine the value of grain by a tester. Whait I am asking is that if a grain tester is to be used at all, Mr. CLANCY.
and I do not say it should not, that grain tester shall not be of a less capacity than one certified bushel. We simply ask the minister to have backbone enough to enforce the law. When he suggests a change in the law I am afraid that he is giving a willing ear to the deputation that thundered at the door of his office recently asking that the law should be repealed. If the minister wants to tinker with the law now, it is only for the purpose of crippling it so that it may be of no use to the farmer. I hope that I have made myself clear as to the views of the farmers of Ontario generally on this question.


George Stephens: In the town I come from, most of the grain buyers if not all of them, are using bushel measures to test the grain.


James Clancy: When did the hon. gentleman get that information ?


George Stephens: My firm has made a good many good dozens of these measures for the grain buyers, lor at least the last year.


James Clancy: If the hon. gentleman will wire to the principal buyers in this town I venture to say he will find that is not the case. I have it from the farmers themselves.


George Stephens: Well, whether the hon. member (Mr. Clancy) says it is the case or not, that will not alter the fact. I say that when the farmer sells his grain he brings it to the buyer, and the buyer tests with the bushel measure as I have seen myself, and our firm have made that measure, and we have been selling it for the last year. The farmer can make his bargain in selling his grain just as he does in selling his cattle. He can say to the buyer :	I
will sell you a thousand bushels of wheat, but you are to take this wheat at its actual weight; you are to use no tester. If the man says he wants it tested the farmer can say that he will not have it, and so the farmer can make a bargain when selling his grain the same as he can when selling his stock or any product of the farm.


James Clancy: I hear some hon. gentlemen cheering, and they seem to make it their business behind there to chatter out ' Hear, Hear,' on every occasion. I do not wish to be offensive to these gentlemen, but I wish to say to the hon. member for Kent (Mr. Stephens) that notwithstanding he makes his measures, and sells them, the fact remains that gentlemen of quite as reputable character as his-and his character is a good one-have stated to me within the last two months that the tester was being used as formerly. If the hon. gentleman denies that, he casts a reflection on the statement made to me by most reputable farmers. I am sure that if the farmers in his constituency read his state-

ment in the press to-morrow that for the last year nothing but the bushel test has been used, it will be a great surprise to them. 1 have not seen the small tester used, but I have scarcely been a day in the city of Chatham, that farmers of reputation and truth and respectability have not told me within the last two or three months, that the old tester of one-sixteenth of a bushel is being used. I have no hesitation in accepting the statement of gentlemen who are just as respectable and just as truthful as any member in this House.


George Stephens: I have sold grain myself during the last year, and it was not tested.


James Clancy: That might be.


George Stephens: There was no bargain as to test when I sold the grain. They weighed it in and gave me so much per bushel on that weight. I have been among the farmers probably as much as the hon. gentleman (Mr. Clancy) has been, and I have yet to hear one recent complaint tnat the small tester is being used in the city of Chatham.


James Clancy: I am very glad to hear the hon. gentleman say that, and I hope it will appear in the newspapers to-morrow.
Mr. McEWEN; I happen to be a grain merchant, and I know that in our locality the inspector sent a circular to the grain men and also to the millers forbidding them to use the tester, and since then I have put away mine. I do not know how many others have done the same thing. The grain inspector also said, that if he came around and found any in use he would confiscate them. I believe they are done away with in our section. At all events they are forbidden and liable to be confiscated.


James Clancy: I am very glad to hear that statement, and I hope it will apply generally, but my information is that it does not. I am aware that the minister has sent out a circular, but the annoying part of it is that in some localities at least there has been no attention paid to it. I am told that in my own town the small tester is in use still.


Richard Blain: I would like to ask the hon. member for Kent what material is used in the manufacture of those bushel measures ?


George Stephens: Light steel.


Richard Blain: Are they stamped ?


George Stephens: Yes, by the government inspector.


Richard Blain: What kind of a bottom ?


George Stephens: Wood or iron, or any other material, so long as it is of the right size.


Mr. McEWEN.: I consider this bushel measure a great mistake. On a cold winter 3Si
day, when half a dozen or more teams are waiting to be unloaded, you have to take a bushel and fill it out of every man's sleigh, and weigh it. I can assure you it is a very great hardship. The majority of grain men would rather trust their eyes than go to that trouble. The men who find * the most fault with these small grain testers are those with light grain ; these are the men who make the loudest noise. The grain tester is a good thing for both the grain men and the grain merchant, and I think that is the proper thing to use.


Mr. JOHNSTON (Cardwell).: As a grain producer and seller, I can say that it is the small measure which was used in Cardwell, Charleston, Caledon East, Mono Road and Bolton last fall.


James Clancy: Before we vote the salaries for these inspectors, I think we might now ask for some declaration on the part of the minister as to whether he still adheres to the statement he made a moment ago that he did not care to interfere, as he thought it would be an interference with trade. We might reasonably expect a statement from the hon. gentleman that he will see that the Act is enforced rather than propose any amendments to it.


The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE.: I may say to my hon. friend that in order to have the law carried out, and perhaps at his own instance, we issued on the 10th of September, 1901, the following circular : Department of Inland Revenue.
Sir,-Complaint has been made to the department that notwithstanding the provision of subsection 2 of section 6 of 61 Victoria, chapter 30, the law is being contravened (already brought to your notice by circular sheet 588 of March 9, 1900.) This section reads as follows :
'No weighing machine used for weighing or determining the weights of any of the articles mentioned in section 16 of the Weights and Measures Act shall be of less capacity than one bushel.'
Therefore, any use made of any weighing machine (having a less capacity than one bushel) for the purpose of charging for or ascertaining the amount or price to be paid for any of the articles referred to in section 16, is illegal. It Is the duty of all Inspectors and assistant inspectors of weights and measures to so advise all persons offending, and to notify them that the further illegal use of such weighing machines shall lead to their confiscation and to the institution of proceedings for the collection of the penalties fixed by section 29 of said Act.
This Is the circular that was issued last year. I may add that I was not in a position to judge of the merits or demerits of that grain tester. Some of the dealers are in favour of using it, and I cannot perceive now why, in face of the law and our circular, a farmer should be bound to sell his grain to a man who uses a grain tester. On the one hand, we have the representation of the hon. member for Bothwell, who may be sustained by the opinion of some other gentlemen ; but, on the other hand,

we have the boards of trade, representing the buyers and shippers, who want us to maintain the use of the grain tester.


James Clancy: The small one ?


The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE.: Yes. I may say to my hon. friend, en passant, that I was never approached by any deputation. We have received resolutions passed by the boards of trade in Montreal, Toronto, Winnipeg, and perhaps some other places ; but, without entering into the merits of the use of the grain tester, would my hon. friend say that it would be in the interest of the farmers of Manitoba ?


James Clancy: They are not interfered with at all, because it is not used there. They have their grain standards, which are fixed by persons whose business it is to establish the qualities of the grain. There is no such thing as this small grain tester used anywhere in Canada outside of the province of Ontario.


The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE.: What is the hon. gentleman asking us to do ? We have issued a circular according to the law as amended in 1901. and we have told our officers that they should inform people using those testers that if they continue doing so the penalties enacted by the law will he imposed. The hon. gentleman now wants us to take legal proceedings ; but if that grain tester is not illegal, how can we succeed ?


James Clancy: Has any one contended that it is a legal measure ?


The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE.: It cannot be legal, because the clause of the Act which I have already read says that no measure less than a bushel shall be used. Suppose we were to take an action, what would be the result of it ? The man would say. ' I may use a grain tester or any other kind of measure/ It is not the fact that the little instrument bears the name of grain tester that makes it legal. You can use any other vessel.


James Clancy: That law declares that any other cannot be used.


The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE.: Yes, but that it is a matter of private bargain between the buyer and seller.


James Clancy: No.


The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE.: Yes, because they agree upon a certain measure not to determine the weight or the quality, but to form a basis for arranging the price. That is a matter of private bargain.


James Clancy: It is not often that we find a minister of the Crown declaring his utter helplessness to enforce the law. Any tester less than a bushel is false weight or measure-it is a false instrument for the purpose under the law, and it is the duty of


Thomas-Alfred Bernier: the hon. minister, at any cost, to see that the law is enforced in this case as in any other. The hon. gentleman need not enter into any question of testing it in the courts. He has only to say to his officers to see to it that there are none of these instruments in use, and that any that are found in use shall be confiscated and any who use them fined. Would the hon. gentleman have the farmer bring before the courts a man whom he found using one of these instruments, entering upon a lawsuit that would probably cost him his farm in fighting a great corporation like the Millers' Association ? Or is he prepared to take the course, the only course that is open to a minister, particularly when he has asked the House to vote money to pay the officers to enforce the law, and that is to enforce that law fairly. There is no need to bandy words about it. It is as plain as anything could be made that there is a law in the statute-book which forbids the use of such an instrument. I will do the hon. minister the credit of saying that he is making laudable efforts to carry out the law. But he tells us that they are fruitless, and that seems to end his inclination to carry out the law. It is not a matter of private bargain, because there is no bargain made. Suppose that the hon. minister is a grain buyer. I go to his warehouse with a load of grain. I make no bargain, except to sell for 75 cents a bushel, subject to a test which may either increase or lower the price. This is not a matter of private bargain, but an appeal to the law where there is no bargain, and where no bargain need to be made. If I said I would sell my grain at 75 cents per bushel, regardless of what tlie tester might make it, whether above or below the standard, that might fairly be called a matter of bargain. But where tin; price may be varied according to the results shown by the tester under the rules of the Millers' Association, that is a different matter. I repeat what I have often said, that I do not object to the grain-buyer having a means of testing the grain he is buying from the farmer. But I venture to repeat that it is clear that it is not for the minister to inquire whether the farmer has made a bargain or not where this tester has been used. The fact is a false weight or measure prohibited by the law has been used, and it is the duty of the officers to take cognizance of that fact. I would ask the hon. minister if he is preparing to follow up the pfforts he has made for the enforcement of the present law ? I had some information that the inspectors are not sent out especially for this business as a rule. I do not know whether they are sent out specially in any case or not, but, no doubt the minister will be able to inform us. I understand that the inspection is not made oftener than once a year. If no inspector is sent out, I can understand that the law will be ignored, because this matter will never come under the notice of the in spec-

tors whose special duty it is to inspect weights and measures, but whose additional duty it is to look after this tester. I think the hon. minister has made a laudable effort.
I think he took the only step that could be taken by a minister-he tried to enforce the law. I think I ought to have some declaration from him whether he will, if necessary, send out inspectors especially to see to this matter and enforce the law. Anything short of that means that the law will not be enforced.


George Taylor: Before the minister answers my hon. friend (Mr. Clancy) I would like to ask both the minister and my hon. friend how the law would be enforced in such a case ? I have been in the grain business for thirty years. This tester, as my hon. friend calls it, was purchased by the grain-buyers some years ago, when we dealt largely in barley to export to the United - States. If, according to the tester, that barley weighed forty-six pounds a bushel, it was worth so much; if it weighed forty-eight or 50 pounds, it would be worth so much more. In order to be able to get our barley graded we invested in these American weighing machines.


James Clancy: They are not American.


George Taylor: I bought mine in the United States. The instrument consisted of a funnel, and the grain filtered down into a two-quart measure that hung on a scale. When it was filled through the funnel, you struck it off level with a ruler, and you were then able to see what the barley weighed per bushel. The farmers, of course, objected, that if they filled the bushel measure and then struck the side of the measure, it would contain more and show a greater weight per bushel. This raised a cry against these machines, and this regulation was adopted. I have one of those machines in my warehouse. A man comes to me with a load of grain, and we bargain as to the price. What is to prevent me taking a sample of that grain into my office to examine it and ascertain its value. I fill my two-quart measure and come to the conclusion that the grain is worth 70 cents per bushel. I offer that price to the farmer, and he is free to take it or not, as he pleases. I deny the right of the government or anybody else to take that instrument, which is my property, out of my warehouse and smash it. I am not buying or selling by it. In ninety-nine cases out of a hundred, the grain is bought on an examination of a sample held in the hand. But, sometimes a case arises when we want to know the weight per bushel, and that is what the tester is used for. It is not used as a test between buyer and seller, but it is used by the buyer as a means of ascertaining what the grain is worth.


James Clancy: Then, why does the hon. gentleman (Mr. Taylor) object to this ?


George Taylor: It is my property, and I am not using it in any illegal way. Therefore, I deny the right of this government or anybody else to take it from me.


James Clancy: I am afraid the hon. gentleman (Mr. Taylor) has convicted himself. He says he does not buy or sell by this instrument. Yet he says also that he uses this test before he tells the farmers what he will give them for the grain. Now, there is no gentleman would dare to assume the responsibility of defending a measure that is found to be false. I am not accusing the grain men of endeavouring to cheat. But if the hon. gentleman had taken the trouble to go to the Department of Inland Revenue when the test was made by the minister and deputy minister with wheat weighing 62| pounds per bushel, he would have seen that after the test had been made of a bushel by the small tester, that there was still ten and one-half ounces left. Why? Because it was dribbled through that little funnel, the air was allowed to get in, and the vessel was too small, and it turned out to be a false test. What was that test, as it would have operated on the farmer ? There were only five out of sixteen tests that went to 62 pounds, although it was 62} pounds by actual weight in a bushel tester, and in a bushel measure. Now, eleven of those farmers would have to take 61 pounds out of the sixteen tests. I think that my hon. friend, although a very just man, has been on one side of the question all his life. He had better read again what the law declares. The section reads : No weighing machine used tor weighing or determining the weight of any articles mentioned in section 16 of the Weights and Measures Act, shall be of less certified capacity than one bushel.
The hon. gentleman uses one-sixteentli of a bushel. Now it has been found by actual experience-and I make no charge against those who use it-that it is so small that it is not a fair tester. The farmers do not ask that the men who purchase their grain should be deprived of the means of ascertaining the value of that grain by putting it into the test of a bushel. We all concede that it is not so convenient ; but it cannot be urged that on the ground of convenience a measure should be used that is not fair to the farmer.


Richard Blain: Do I understand that the only measure that can be used in the province of Ontario between the buyer and seller of grain is a one-bushel measure ?


The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE.: The legal measure, the law says so.


Richard Blain: And only a bushel measure?


The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE.: Yes.


Richard Blain: Suppose a farmer went into his neighbour's granary and purchased 30 bushels of wheat, would he he compelled to

use a one-bushel measure to measure that wheat ?


The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE.: They are bound to use It. They have always to go to the legal weight. I mentioned the practice in Quebec. There we use the term bushel in speaking of 400 bushels, 500 bushels, 600 bushels or any other quantity. But when we come to deliver the grain it is always by weight according to the agreement between seller and buyer. The buyer will say, I will give you 25 cents, or 30 cents, for 32, 34 or 36 pounds of oats. That is the condition of sale, always understood.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Not always in Montreal, for weight.


The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE.: They may change it in Montreal. Sometimes they say 40 pounds or 42 pounds. It depends on the weight of the oats, which is not always the same. In some years the oats are heavier than in other years. But I cannot understand, in face of the law as it is to-day, how far we can go, and I call the attention of the legal profession here to that point.	*


James Clancy: Cannot the hon. gentleman see that the instructions are carried out ?


The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE.: Yes, but then we will be face to face with the argument used by the hon member ior Leeds (Mr. Taylor) :	Can you deprive me
of my measure ? The government has no business to interfere.


George Taylor: I do not use this tester in buying grain by any means. I have a two-quart measure, I fill that two-quart measure, and I set it on the scales to see how much it will weigh. That is what a grain man does. One load of oats may weigh 40 pounds to the bushel, another load 32 pounds ; that which weighs 40 pounds is worth more than that which weighs but 32 pounds, and this instrument will indicate it to me.


James Clancy: Why not use a bushel ?


George Taylor: Because it is not so convenient. Ninety-nine loads out of 100 are bought by the purchaser merely looking at the grain in his hand. There is not a grain man in Ontario but has one of these instruments in his warehouse.


James Clancy: The hon. gentleman says he does not set the law at defiance. the hon. member for Leeds says he just uses it when he likes. If he uses it at all the law declares it shall be a bushel. He is not obliged to use it, but the farmer ought to be protected when he does use it, and know that it has a certified capacity of one bushel. Yet the hon. gentleman declares that he cannot be prevented from using a tester. Unless the tester is of the certified capacity of one bushel he is using it illegally, because Mr. BLAIN.
the measure is his own it gives him no right to use it. The hon. gentleman is not obliged to use a tester, but if he does use one, the law steps in and says, for the protection of the farmer, that it must be one bushel.


George Taylor: And that is all right. My hon. friend comes to me and says, I want to sell you 500 bushels of pease, or wheat, and if your wheat weighs 60 pounds a bushel I will give you 80 cents a bushel. He comes in with his wheat and I must then take a bushel measure and put it on the scales and test it. But if he comes in with his load of grain and says : How much will you give me for that load of grain, without saying anything about the weight, I look at it, and if I am not satisfied as to what it will weigh, I take two quarts of it and weigh it and make the calculation to see how much a bushel will weigh, and I pay for it accordingly. But if I buy from a man and he guarantees me that his oats will weigh 34 pounds a bushel, I must, by the law, use a one-bushel measure.


James Clancy: No.


George Taylor: I say yes. You come to me to sell me 500 bushels of oats, and I say I will give you 30 cents a bushel if they weigh 34 pounds to the bushel. Then I must weigh a bushel. But if I am buying these from you and nothing said about the quantity, or the quality, I look at the oats, and I may be deceived, I may think these oats will not weigh over 30 pounds.
I will take two quarts and test them for my satisfaction, and the result will tell me whether they will weigh 30 or 32 or 34 pounds to the bushel. That is all we use it for. But if I buy oats at a price of so much per bushel provided they weigh 34 pounds, I must weigh one bushel to see how much they will weigh. But in the case of every load of grain that comes in after we make the bargain, it is put on the platform scales and the quantity is thus determined.


James Clancy: The hon, gentleman need not try to confuse the question. A man brings in a load of grain. The hon. gentleman wants to be sure that it is up to a certain standard, and he takes his two quart measure and by that he makes the test. The complaint of the farmer is not that he takes grain without a test, because he will be glad to sell it and to take so much for his grain to be weighed on the scale and no test. But the buyer insists upon the test, he asks that it shall be made in a vessel, namely, a bushel measure, and it has been demonstrated time and again that nothing else than that is fair. Now, I want to ask the hon. minister to declare to the House whether he intends to continue in his efforts to enforce the Act as it now stands.


The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE.: Yes.


George Stephens: It seems to me this question resolves Itself Into ascertaining whether the minister has power or not to take these vessels away from the grain buyers. I myself have made some inquiry, and I believe he has not that power, and that the grain buyer can use this tester to satisfy himself the same as he can use his eyes to satisfy himself. He does not use it for the purpose of buying grain from the * farmer, but to satisfy himself as to its value. I believe that a tester is a good thing, but it should be a bushel measure.
I think if the minister has the power he should do away with the smaller measure altogether, but I do not believe that he has power to do that. I believe that the buyer can use the tester the same as he can use his eyes.


Mr McGOWAN.: As I understand the hon. member for Bothwell (Mr. Clancy) he proposes that the hon. Minister of Inland Revenue should destroy all the testing machines of less than one bushel capacity.


James Clancy: No.


Mr. McGOWAN.: I thought the hon. gentleman said that. If the minister were to do that it would inflict a very great hardship on a great many people. I buy a carload of flax seed, for instance, and I test it with a machine very much smaller than one bushel capacity. We have to ascertain how much dirt there is in that flax, and it is understood in the trade that it'shall be sold subject to that test. It would be a very great hardship to adopt a bushel measure for this purpose. I hope the hon. member will not destroy all of these machines that are of a less capacity than one bushel.


James Clancy: My hon. friend (Mr. McGowan) misunderstands me. I can assure him that I am not so belligerent as he suspects. All I ask the hon. gentleman to do is to put that machine aside and buy a new one of a bushel capacity.


John McGowan: Well, I will not do that.


James Clancy: I did not hear what the hon. member said in response to my question a moment ago.


The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE.: I said that I would endeavour to have the law carried out.


James Clancy: Has the hon. gentleman any special inspection for this purpose ?


The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE.: No, except that the officers will have to comply with the circular that I have already read.


James Clancy: I had a promise from the hon. gentleman's department that inspectors at least within a limited area would go out for this purpose, I want to ask the hon. gentleman if this promise has been carried out.	.


The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE.: That was done.


Robert Johnston: The grievance that the farmer feels against the use of a smaller measure than one bushel is tliis :	You go in with your load of grain
and the merchant tells you he will give you so much if it comes up to such a test and he shows you a sample of grain which is sent to him as a standard to go by. The farmer thinks that the grain should be tested in a larger vessel than is used so that the balance would have to be counted upon when weighing because it always takes something to balance the beam in weighing a quantity short of a bushel. I think it would be fairer that there should be one bushel weighed because the merchant has an advantage in weighing a little at a time instead of a whole bushel. We all know very well that it takes something to balance the beam always and whilst you weigh oftener it will count that when you come up to the amount of a bushel. I do not know whether the department will be able to confiscate these small machines or not. I believe there is no use in attempting it unless it can compel each buyer to test the grain in a bushel measure.


Nathaniel Boyd: Mr. Chairman, there is a matter I wish to bring to the attention of the Minister of Inland Revenue with the object of getting his views upon it. It is the matter of the weighing of grain coming through threshing machines. I do not know whether this question has reached the attention of the hon. minister or not, but it is a matter of a great deal of importance to the people of Manitoba and the North-west Territories. According to the way in which the Weights and Measures Act has been interpreted I understand that the owners of grain have to pay for their threshing by the bushel measure. Most of the threshing machines in Manitoba and the North-west Territories have bushellers that put the grain into a bag and. the bags are counted, or they have automatic weighers that weigh the grain as it is threshed, and passed up through an elevator. I am told by men engaged in the business that they have a great deal of trouble with some dishonest people in collecting the amount of their threshing bills, because, after threshing has been done, iii some cases, they have refused to pay for it, claiming that, according to the regulation of the Department of Inland Revenue, they are not called upon to pay for any grain which is not measured through a bushel measure. If that is the correct interpretation of the Act, I think it is decidedly a great hardship to the men engaged in the threshing business. I understand there have been some cases before the courts in the province of Manitoba and that decisions such as I have referred to against the grain threshers have been given in the manner which I have mentioned. I would

like to have the opinion of the hon. minister in regard to it.


The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE.: We hare already had a reference of the matter to the department. There were complaints that a dispute had arisen between the proprietors of these threshing machines and some farmers, but this is one of those cases with which we cannot interfere. Our answer was that we were not prepared, to devise a machine by which an apparatus might be provided to be attached to a threshing machine for the purpose of weighing grain. Let the farmers and the men who manage these machines agree upon some kind of a measure or weighing machine which we can inspect. All we can do is to inspect that measure or weighing machine. The manufacturer of these machines cannot expect the department to devise a means by which an apparatus can be attached to a machine such as a weighing machine or some kind of a measure. That is not our business. I cannot understand why the owners of threshing machines and the farmers cannot agree as to that. We have, in the province of Quebec, threshing machines, perhaps not so powerful as these, and I never heard that there was any dispute in regard to the payment to the owners of those machines. This is a question that they must settle for themselves. We cannot 'inspect unless we are called upon to inspect a measure.


William James Roche: The hon. minister states that he does not see any reason why the threshers and the farmers cannot have some measure that they can mutually agree upon. The hon. member for Macdonald (Mr. Boyd) has referred to the fact that by some decisions of the courts they cannot do this. I am in receipt of some communications from threshers, amongst them is one from the secretary of the Threshers Protective Association ' in which they state they are not permitted to do that.
I will read one letter I have received :
I beg leave to call your attention to the bearing the Weights and Measures Act has on thresbermen. According to a late decision a thresherman cannot collect unless he uses1 a standard measure which must be stricken, a thing it is almost impossible to do. As a thresher does not buy grain but only bestows a certain amount of labour upon it in preparing it for market he should be allowed to contract by bag or any way that will be mutally agreeable the same as any other labourers who take part in its production. Mr. Si [ton was interviewed at Brandon, and promised to look into the matter and we would ask you to give your aid and assistance when it comes up.
The hon. gentleman will see that the secretary of the Threshers Protective Association is under the impression that they cannot enter into an agreement that will be mutually satisfactory on account of this decision.


The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE.: Let these men agree among themselves on a measure and we are ready to inspect that measure. But, we cannot go further. They want us to devise some means by way of an apparatus attached to the threshing machine. We cannot do that. It is only our duty to inspect weights or measures under the law.


Nathaniel Boyd: Do I understand the hon. [DOT] minister to say that they will not inspect this measure that is on the machine ?


The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE.: No. We cannot inspect a measure attached to the threshing machine unless it comes under the terms of the law. If it does, then of course we are bound to inspect it. Any machine which falls under the terms of the law we are bound to inspect.


Nathaniel Boyd: I think that would be a contradiction of the judgment which has been given by the courts if I understand it aright. I want to point out the hardship that these men are labouring under. These machines thresh from 2,000 up to 2,700 bushels in a day. How is it possible for wheat in quantities like that to be handled in any other way than the way in which it is now handled, either through a bagger, or through an automatic weigher ? We think the government should test these automatic weighing machines, or that some means should be devised whereby these men would be able to collect their charges for threshing grain.


Mr. SMITH (Wentworth).: I have not heard any explanation from the hon. minister as to why this increase of 10 per cent over the vote for last year is asked for.
Is it caused by an increase In the number of officers or, have the salaries been increased ?


The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE.: I will give the information to my hon. friend. There is an increase of $4,950, made up as follows : It is in the first place to provide for the inspection of weights and measures in the Yukon, where we have no inspection now, and there is pressure brought to bear that we should appoint an officer, which I think we should do.


James Clancy: Will he do his duty ?


The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE.: I expect so. To appoint an inspector in St. Hyaclnthe, $800; to appoint Thomas Parker, assistant inspector, British Columbia mainland, $600; to provide an assistant inspector, Nova Scotia, $800; to appoint P. H. Prefon-taine, assistant inspector, Quebec, $500; to appoint .T. E. Bernier, assistant inspector, St. John, N.B., $600-I may say he is no relation of mine-increase to officers, $450; to transfer W. J. La belle from inside service to outside service, $1,100, making $6,350, less $1,400, leaving $4,950.


Nathaniel Boyd: Metrical instruments, $500.


George Taylor: I had an application from the head master of the Gananoque High School a few days ago, for one of those metrical systems. I interviewed the minister in reference to the matter, and he told me that he had given a great many out to schools and that he had none on hand. The letter sent to me by the master of the Gananoque school says that this would be very useful to the pupils. In view of this, I believe that the minister should make provision in the supplementary estimates to secure a supply for the high schools of the Dominion. There are only one or two in each county. The government do very little for our schools, and I do not think they could spend money better than in furnishing all the high schools with these metrical charts.


The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE.: As soon as the metric systems which have been ordered from France arrive here, the hon. gentleman (Mr. Taylor) will receive one for the academy for which he has applied. Since 1897-98 we have expended $1,750 for these metric systems. We have already given out 107 and we have application for . 43 more. Formerly we kept no record, but for two years we have a record giving the name of each institution to which they have been sent, and since 1 have been in the department they have been distributed to colleges, seminaries, convents, normal schools and high schools. It is the intention of the department to order some more to satisfy the demands.
Salaries of inspectors of gas ani electric light, $21,450.


Richard Blain: Do these inspectors travel through country towns for the purpose of inspecting the electric light systems ?


The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE.: The increase of $750 is for what may be called statutory increases, $400, and to appoint an inspector in Gharlottetown, $300. The inspection of electricity in done by the gas inspector in the town or locality when there is such an Officer, and when there is no such officer in the town the inspector of the next town makes the inspection.


Richard Blain: Is it the duty of one of these inspectors to visit a country town where they have an electric light system at certain intervals during the year ?
The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENuE. Whenever they are called for. The Act of last session provides that after the meters are fixed they remain untouched for five years except there is a disagreement between the user and the company. In that case the inspector is called in to examine the meter and he must do it in the presence of the owner or user. If there is no inspector in the locality, the parties interested or the company may call upon the officer in charge of the inspection in that district.


Richard Blain: I refer more particularly to the towns in which there are no meters in use.


The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE.: We inspect meters and not electric plant.


Richard Blain: This item speaks of electric light inspectors.


The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE.: That is the general term.


Richard Blain: Do I understand that there is no electric light inspection in towns where no meters are used ?


The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE.: They have to register in the department, and that is all.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: This amount is considerable, and I do not want to refer to the discussion in respect to coal oil, which has occupied the greater part of the evening.


Mr. TALBOT.: Hear, hear.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: It seems to be the particular function of the hon. member for Bellecliasse to cry out ' hear, hear.' We are voting this evening over $600,000, a large part of which is for the inspection of gas and electric light. There is no doubt that a much larger proportion of the population use coal oil than use either of these illuminants. There have been complaints in the west and there have been great complaints around Montreal as to the quality of the coal oil sold. I believe the minister was right when he stated that as a matter of fact there is no inspection of coal oil, but I believe that he was wrong when he stated that the law does not authorize his department to inspect the illuminating xoower of coal oil. We have had a divergence of views on that. We have had the Minister of Finance say that the law did authorize the inspection, but I did not understand from the Minister of Justice that the law did authorize that inspection. My own idea, looking at the Act as I find it, is that your department has the power to make regulations which would enable you to inspect coal oil in the way we desire it should be inspected. Here is a company that has an immense sale of oil in Canada; it is a monopoly that carries out of the country over $2,000,000 a year in unfair profits, to my mind. It seems to me that we are entitled to know what the policy of the government is before we close this question. Is it the intention of the government to provide for such an inspection of coal oil as will ensure us a satisfactory quality ? If the government refuse to tell us what they are going to do in that respect, it is a proof that that gigantic company has even greater influence than we imagine it has.


The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE.: I do not think so, and I do not think that my hon. friend is convinced of what he has said, that the company may have some power over the government or over myself.
I What I have said is that I will see how we

can remidy the evils complained of in Manitoba, the North-west or any other part of the Dominion ; and before proposing any change in the law, I will ascertain through the Department of Justice how far we can go under the law as it now stands. My hon. friend and myself might discuss the interpretation of the law, but that would have no practical result. What X have stated, and what I repeat, is that as soon as the report from Manitoba reaches us, which will be within two weeks, I shall have the whole question examined, to see what we can do to protect the public. I cannot say any more.


Richard Blain: What was the result of the test of the first sample of coal oil brought from Manitoba ?


The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE.: The result was that it was good oil.


Mr. JOHNSTON (West Lambton).: Before this discussion is closed, I would like to say a few words. It seems to me that the mere presence of coal oil on the market is an indication that it has passed inspection by the government.


The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE.: That is the assumption.


Alexander Johnston: To thoroughly get over the difference it would be necessary to examine specimens of coal oil under the Adulteration of Food Act. There is no doubt whatever that it passes inspection in the first place, and if any manipulation takes place, it is while it is in transit to the retail dealer, or at all events before it reaches the consumer. As to Canadian oil being inferior to American oil, the suggestion is perfectly absurd. The best coal oil made on the continent to-day is Canadian oil. That is borne out by every possible test. Canadian water white oil is the best and most economical oil made. Its specific gravity is greater than that of American oil, it has less volatile matter, it burns as clearly, and lasts longer.


Nathaniel Boyd: We certainly did not have that kind of oil in Manitoba last fall.


Alexander Johnston: You said it was American oil.


Richard Blain: If the hon. gentleman's statement be correct, it is very strange that the consumers in the province of Ontario will pay from two to five cents a gallon more for American oil than for Canadian oil.


Alexander Johnston: It is beyond dispute that a great deal of Canadian water white oil is sold in Ontario as American oil.


Richard Blain: If that is true, do you not think it requires some inspection ?
Some resolutions reported.
On motion of the Minister of Marine and Fisheries, House adjourned at 12.05 a.m. Friday.


Thomas-Alfred Bernier: Friday, March 14, 1902.