1902-04-16

ALEXANDER GIBSON RAILWAY AND MANUFACTURING COMPANY.

Mr. D. C. FRASER (Guysborough) moved :: That the petition of the Alexander Gibson Ra.lway and Manufacturing Company presented this day, for leave to present a petition for an Act, be read and received, and referred to the Committee on Standing Orders.
He said:	I might explain to the House
the reason for this motion. This company, which does business in the province of New Brunswick, are operating a railway, which they got power from this parliament in 1898 to take over. Being a provincial corporation, they believed that the legislature of New Brunswick had power to authorize the separation of the railway from the manufacturing business, and that they could obtain an Act from that legislature for -such a purpose; but they have recently been advised that it will be necessary or advisable to obtain an Act of the parliament of Canada for that purpose. They find now that they cannot work the two very well together, and by the time they learned that it would be necessary to come to this House, the time for presenting petitions had expired. All they want now, with the full consent of the shareholders, is to have provision made simply for running the railway under a separate company from the other business. Under these exceptional circumstances, I trust that the House will grant them the privilege of introducing this petition and having it go to the committee.


Hon. Mr. HAGGART.: What is the name of the railway ?


Duncan Cameron Fraser: The Canada Eastern.


John Graham Haggart: All the parties interested have given their consent ?


Duncan Cameron Fraser: All have signed this petition, and they are all -agreed.


Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).: It is merely dividing the enterprise, I understand ?


Duncan Cameron Fraser: Yes, a purely domestic matter.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr.   H.@: GUTHRIE (South Wellington) moved for leave to introduce Bill (No. 110) respecting the incorporation of railway companies.


Robert Laird Borden: Will the hon. gentleman kindly give a brief explanation V


Mr. GUTHRIE.: The object of the Bill which I have just asked leave to introduce is to place certain restrictions upon the present system of granting railway charters; a system which I believe has prevailed in this House for a great many years. It is not intended in any way to limit the number of charters nor to impose any unreasonable or unnecessary conditions upon railway promoters. The Bill is aimed chiefly at what are known as speculative charters, or charters which are obtained by parties for the purpose of embarrassing companies which are in possession of constructed works. The Bill, in brief, provides that parties who apply for railroad charters shall accompany their applications with a sum equivalent to $200 per mile of the proposed road, which'sum shall be deposited with the government, and on the completion of the proposed work shall be returned to the company with all accumulated interest; but if the work be not proceeded with, then the $200 per mile shall be forfeited to the government of Canada. The Bill is not perhaps as complete in form as it might be, and I am well aware that at this late hour of the session such a Bill introduced by a private member can hardly be pressed to a successful conclusion. However, my idea in presenting it at this time is to bring the matter to the attention of the Minister of Railways,-the members of the House and the public in general, in order that the difficulties which now exist may be dealt with by some kind of legislative enactment, if not by such a Bill as this, then by some other Bill or by a general provision to be inserted in the general Act which the Minister of Railways is now pressing. When one considers that the total railway mileage constructed in Canada to-day is approximately about 18,500 miles and that session after session charters are granted for anywhere from
10,000	to 15,000 miles of new railway-I believe this session for about 12,000 miles; and when one also considers that about a third of the time of this House as well as a great deal of hard committee work is taken up in considering these measures, and that from 75 to 80 per cent of them never materialize, one must come to the conclusion that a great many of the charters now granted are taken out by the promoters for speculative purposes, to be hawked around and sold when occasion offers, or else for the purpose of embarrassing others. It may be that the true way out of the difficulty would be what is known as free trade in railroad charters, a system which I be-Mr. FRASER.
lieve prevails in some of the United States, where one is merely required to have ithe plans and proflies prepared and filed and the work proceeded with. I think, myself, there is a good deal to be said in favour of that system, provided proper financial guarantees are taken that the railway shall be proceeded with and constructed.
In discussing the matter with an hon. member yesterday, he argued that such a Bill would be in the interests of large corporations and strike a blow at men of moderate financial standing. I think, however, that my hon. friend will find upon reflection that there is nothing in that argument. Men of moderate financial standing should not ask for charters for 500 or 1,000 or 1,500 miles of railway, as in all probability they will not be able to carry out their undertaking. But if they ask for moderate charters, there Is no reason why they should not be able to put up the $200 a mile, knowing well that if their application be in good faith, the money will come back to them. I think that this is an opportune time to bring the matter before the House, in order that it may be dealt with if possible in a general Act. No doubt the Bill is not perfect in all its details, but any such imperfections can be remedied. I believe that where any substantial performance of the undertaking has taken place no forfeiture should be insisted on, or where the failure is due to some difficulty of an unforeseen character, such as a crisis in the money market or a temporary shortage of railway material, or where there has been a part performance, there should be a pro rata adjustment. But where there has been absolutely no performance or an attempt at performance, there should be an absolute forfeiture of the. deposit.


Mr. T. S. SPROULE (East Grey).: I am afraid that my hon. friend will find that his Bill will not accomplish what he desires, if the history of the past may be taken as an index of what will happen in the future. We know how easily deposits made to guarantee contracts are returned to the parties who have failed in their obligations. Take for instance the elevator matter at Montreal, in which a deposit was made with the government, but after keeping it a length of time the government returned the money. We have other instances of the same nature. Some two or three years ago, when a Bill was before the Railway Committee asking incorporation for a company to build a railway in the Yukon district, the company offered to put up a deposit, but the members of the Railway Committee who were supporters of the government,-I do not know; if the hon. gentleman took part or not in that committee-absolutely refused to require a deposit on the ground that it was establishing a bad principle and voted down the motion made to require a deposit as a guarantee of the building of the road. Remembering these things and knowing how

easy it is for companies to put up excuses for not accomplishing what they have bound themselves to do, and how easy it will be for them to take advantage of that provision in the hon. gentleman's Bill which provides for a non-exaction of the forfeit condition in certain cases, or for a pro rata return of the deposit made, in my opinion the Bill will practically he of no effect whatever.


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

Mr. LEIGHTON  G.@: MCCARTHY (North Simcoe) moved for leave to introduce Bill (No. Ill) to amend the General Inspection Act. He said : This Bill is intended to amend the General Inspection Act regarding hides, skins and leather. It is intended to apply only to the cities mentioned, namely : Quebec, Montreal, Ottawa, Kingston, Toronto, Hamilton and London. I have no objection to extending it further, but I have limited it to these places because they are the centres of the hide business of this country. The object is to have hides inspected wherever practicable, green and uncured, because I am informed that a perfect inspection cannot be had after the hides are salted or cured. It is intended also to have the green or uncured hides inspected in order to compel a proper flaying of the animals by the butchers. I am instructed that at present, owing to the careless way in which the animals are killed and their hides taken off, a great deal of waste material remains in the hide, and if the inspector were obliged to lower the standard of the hides because of improper or unskilful flaying, that would improve the hides in their value. The Bill also aims at preventing any frauds in the inspection such as have hitherto existed, such as resalting or watering the hides and thus increasing the weight, the hides being purchased or sold by the weight. The effect of the Bill will also be to create a uniform inspection in the districts in which it is put into operation. The experience in other places will I think warrant this House in passing a measure of this kind. I am advised that by reason of a more careful inspection in Liverpool, the quality and price of hides has greatly increased, and no doubt a similar result will follow a perfect system of inspection in this country. This Bill, like that of my hon. friend's from Wellington (Mr. Guthrie), is introduced somewhat late in the session, and if hon. members desire to have time to circulate it among their constituents in order to ascertain the views of those engaged in the business, it would not become me to press it to a final reading this session. I have not consulted the Minister of Inland Revenue and therefore the same remark applies to him, but I have endeavoured in this Bill to carry out the ideas I have expressed, 90
and which I think will have the effect of improving the quality and price of the hides bought and sold in this country.


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

The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR (Hon. Clifford Sifton).: Moved for leave to introduce Bill (No. 112) to amend the Immigration Act. He said : My object is to enable the government to deport immigrants from foreign countries, who may be suffering from any dangerous or infectious disease. While there is no ground for the somewhat alarming statements made with respect to the number of diseased persons entering this country, still it has been found that the officers of the immigration branch of the department are not sufficiently armed with authority to deal with such cases. I cannot explain the provisions of the Bill better than simply reading the operative section.
The Governor General may, by a proclamation or order whichever he considers most expedient, and whenever he deems it necessary, prohibit the 'landing in Canada of any immigrant or any other passenger who is suffering from any dangerous or infectious disease or malady, whether such immigrant intends to settle in Canada, or oily intends to pass through Canada to settle In some other country.
In addition to the necessities of the case as observed by the officers of the department, transportation companies and others engaged in the business of transporting immigrants, particularly at Montreal, Quebec and Halifax, have urgently requested that this legislation should be introduced.


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

[Stage Direction]
The MINISTER OF JUSTICE (Hon. Charles Fitzpatrick) moved for leave to introduce a Bill to amend Chapter 41 of the Statutes of 1901, respecting the Administration of Justice in the Yukon Territory. He said: This is a very unimportant measure. It is merely to amend section 3 of the Act in question so as to enable us to increase the salaries of the stipendiary magistrates from $2,400, at which it is fixed, to $4,000. There are now two stipendiary magistrates, one at White Horse and the other at Dawson. In addition to their living allowance they have a salary of $3,000. The intention is to increase the salary to $4,000 and reduce the living allowance to $1,800.
John Graham Haggart: Is it not necessary to have a resolution to found that Bill upon?
Motion withdrawn.



YUKON TERRITORY-TERRITORIAL ACT AMENDMENT.

[Stage Direction]
The MINISTER OF JUSTICE (Hon. Charles Fitzpatrick) moved for leave to introduce Bill (No. 113) further to amend the Yukon Territory Act and the Acts in amendment thereof. He said : Hon. gentlemen are aware that, at the present time the appeal from the court in the Yukon Territory is to the court of British Columbia. The intention is to constitute a local Court of Appeal within the Yukon Territory and also to provide that the appeal from the court constituted shall be from a single judge to the Court of Appeal, and from that Court of Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada, where the amount in controversy exceeds $2,000. It also provides that, in mining cases, there shall be a right of appeal from the judgment of the Gold Commissioner.
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the first time.

[Stage Direction]
The MINISTER OF JUSTICE (Hon. Charles Fitzpatrick) moved for leave to introduce Bill (No. 114) to amend the Exchequer Court Act. He said : This is a mere matter of procedure. The Bill first authorizes an appeal from a judgment on demurrer. As hon. gentlemen who are members of the legal profession are aware there is no appeal from a judgment of the Exchequer Court, unless it is a final judgment. But there may be a case in which there is a demurrer which is decided by a judge of the Exchequer Court which may not decide the case itself. If an appeal could be taken, the case might be decided upon that, and so save''the expense of further proceedings and of calling witnesses. Another section authorizes the service of process in the Exchequer Court upon residents abroad, whether they be British subjects or foreigners. Another section provides for leave to appeal from the Exchequer Court to the Supreme Court in cases where the amount in controversy does not exceed $500. At present it is necessary that the amount shall exceed $500. This is to provide for special cases that have arisen under the Expropriation Act. The appeal is made conditional upon receiving permission to appeal from the court to which the appeal is to be taken.
Robert Laird Borden: Is there not an appeal in a judgment on demurrer in the Exchequer Court in which it finally disposes of the case ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: Yes, then you get a final judgment. But this provides for cases where judgment does not finally dispose of the whole action. For Instance, suppose a case is brought against the Crown. We put in a demurrer. The demurrer is dismissed. There is no appeal


John Graham Haggart: and we are forced to go to trial and expend a large amount of money in bringing witnesses. Then, when the appeal to the Supreme Court is taken, the whole matter may be disposed of on the original question raised in the lower court.


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

[Stage Direction]
The MINISTER OF JUSTICE (Hon. Charles Fitzpatrick) moved for leave to introduce Bill (No. 115) further to amend the Canada Evidence Act, 1893. He said : This Bill is introduced at the suggestion of some judges in Ontario. It is intended to limit the number of expert witnesses that may be examined on either side to five, unless the court think that the number should be increased. I understand that great abuses have arisen in the province of Ontario through excessive calling of expert witnesses-dozens of them called, and the expenses of the trial increased accordingly.
Mr. MCCARTHY.: Does this apply only to the province of Ontario ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: It applies throughout the Dominion, but, I understand that the abuse has been noticed particularly in Ontario.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the first time.
QUESTIONS.	,
I.C.R.-PURCHASES OF CAR TRUCKS, &c.
Hon. Mr. I1AGGART asked :
1.	What number o& Simplex truck bolsters and body bolsters have been purchased between the 30th June, 1900, and 15th March, 1902 ?
2.	What has been the cost ?
3.	What amount of car forgings or parts of car trucks have been purchased from the Cros-sen Manufacturing Company, or other persons, between the same dates, and at .what cost ?
4.	What number of patent steel trucks, known as the Joughin's truck, have been purchased between the same dates, and from whom ?
5.	Of all these trucks and parts of trucks, what quantity was in stock on the 15th March, 1902, and what is the value thereof ?
The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS (Hon. A. G. Blair) :: 1.	Ten thousand one hundred and forty Simplex truck and body bolsters have been purchased between 30th June, 1900, and 15th March, 1902.
2.	The cost has been $264,440.
3.	Four hundred and fifty-five thousand one hundred and thirty pounds car forgings and 480 turn buckle drop forgings were purchased from the Crossen Manufacturing Company between the 30tli June, 1900, and 15th March, 1902. Cost, $14,229.20.
4.	Two hundred and forty patent steel trucks, known as Jougliins truck, were purchased from the Record Foundry and

Machine Company, Moncton, and 805 from A. E. Peters, Moncton, between 30tli June, 1900, and 15th March, 1902.
5.	On the 15th March, 1902, there were 761 Joughins trucks in stock, the value being $63,924; 822 Simplex truck and body bolsters, value $22,932; 332,910 pounds car forgings, value $10,253.63.



I.C.R.-SECTION FOREMAN, JOHN BARBOUR.

Mr. BORDEN (Halifax) asked :: 1.	Was section foreman John Barbour, on the Intercolonial Railway, dismissed ? If so, when, and for what, reason ?
2.	Were any charges brought against him ? If so, what were they, and was he given an investigation ? If. not, for what reason was an investigation denied ?
3.	For how many years had he paid into the Insurance Fund, and what amount each year ?
4.	Is it the intention of the government to refund, with interest, the amount so paid ? If not, for what reason is it withheld ?


The MINISTER OP RAILWAYS AND CANALS (Hon. A. G. Blair) :: 1.	He was dismissed on the 30th November, 1901, for political partisanship, on the representation of Sir. O. Turgeon, M.P.
2.	No charges were brought against him except that of political partisanship. He was not given an investigation. It is not usual to grant investigations in such cases unless ordered by the department.
3.	He paid into the Insurance Fund for eleven years and seven months, from 1st May, 1890, to 30th November, 1901. He paid the following amounts each year :
1890, May and June	$ 1 40
1891	
9	401892	
10	461893	
9	001894	
8	251895	
8	501896	
18	001897	
22	501898	
23	801899	
25	501900	
23.101901	
23	6'01901, July to Nov	
10	00

4. The amount paid into the Insurance Fund cannot be refunded, but any member of the Insurance Fund Association who has contributed while in the service may, under the regulations, continue a member of the fund, after he ceases to be in the employ.
. MAPLE CREEK POST OFFICE.


Mr. BOYD asked :: 1.	Has the Postmaster General received any petition from the residents of Maple Creek, N.W.T., asking for the removal of the post office to some building separate from any other business ?
2.	What answer was sent to the said petitioners, and what action, if any, has been decided upon by the department ?
90i
3. Is it the policy of the department, when an office has sufficient earning capacity, to have such office located in a separate building ?
The POSTMASTER GENERAL (Hon. Wm. Mulock) ;
1.	Yes.
2	and 3. No final conclusion has been reached, but if the revenue of the office continues to increase it may in the public interest be necessary to make a change. Whilst there is no hard and fast rule upon the subject, still when the revenue of a post office attains such proportions as to afford a fair and reasonable living to the postmaster it is considered not unreasonable in the public interest that he should give his undivided attention to the affairs of the office. Ordinarily a change of postmaster under such circumstances would involve the carrying on of the office in a separate building.



UNIT OF REPRESENTATION, CENSUS, 1901.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. FOWLER-by Mr. Hughes-asked :
1.	What is the unit of representation as shown by the census of 1901 ?
2.	Will the representation in the House of Commons from the provinces of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island be diminished as a result of their small relative increase of population since 1891, as compared with that of the province of Quebec, as shown by the said census ?
3.	If so, by how many members will the representation be diminished in each of the said provinces of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island ?
The PRIME MINISTER (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier).: This question is altogether premature, it cannot he answered now.



DOCTOR ALFRED BOUILLON, MATANE.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. CASGRAIN-by Mr. Borden (Halifax)-asked :
1.	Was Dr. Alfred Bouillon, of Matane, dismissed as port physician at Matane in 1896 ?
2.	If so, for what reasons ?
The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE (Hon. Sydney Fisher).: Dr. Alfred Bouillon was never employed as port physician by tlie Department of Agriculture, and was consequently never dismissed.



I.C.R.-FIRE INSURANCE.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. CASGRAIN-by Mr. Borden (Halifax)-asked :
1.	Is there any fire insurance on the locomotives, rolling stock or buildings (stations, car houses, machine shops and elevators) of the Intercolonial Railway ?
2.	If so, for what amount, in what companies, and by whom were they placed ?
The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS (Hon. A. G. Blair).: There is no fire insurance on the locomotives, rolling stock or buildings, &e., of the Intercolonial Railway.



DISMISSAL OF POSTMASTER AT JOLIETTE.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. CASGRAIN-by Mr. Borden (Halifax)-asked :
1.	Before deciding to dismiss John James Sheppard from the office of postmaster at Joliette, did the government have an inquiry made into the conduct of that officer ?
2.	Did the government, before deciding on such dismissal, inform the said Sheppard, that his dismissal was demanded, and has Sheppard had an opportunity to be heard or to set forth his reasons in opposition to the complaint formulated against him ?
3.	Has Sheppard himself written to the government, or to one of Its members, that he desired an inquiry before being dismissed ?
4.	Why has the government not granted an inquiry to Sheppard ?
The POSTMASTER GENERAL (Hon. Wm. Mulock).: The postmaster at Joliette was dismissed upon the information contained in a letter, of which the following is a translation :
House of Commons,.
Ottawa, March 7, 1902.
Sir,-I have already asked you several times for the dismissal of the postmaster of Joliette, Dr. J. J. Sheppard.
Our friends are complaining, with reason, of the conduct of Dr. Sheppard. He is an ardent Conservative who has continued to fight our friends. In spite of his position he exercises his influence in the city of Joliette, where he lives, and outside of it with his patients and friends.
During the elections of 1896 he compelled two persons to vote for the Conservative candidate, Mr. Belisle, whose wife was employed in the post office and Mr. Mireault, mail courier of Joliette.
During the elections of 1890 he exercised the same influence over Mr. Mireault and two of his sons who live with the latter. During the same elections again, with the intention of hurting the Liberals and helping the Conservatives, Dr. Sheppard detained illegally at his office letters which the committee of organization of the Liberal party addressed.to the political Liberal leaders of each parish ; amongst others, two letters addressed to political friends in two parishes requesting them to announce on Sunday after the service political meetings which the Liberal party was going to hold in these two parishes one day of the following week.
The consequence of this, was that I went to these two parishes with speakers to have the discussion and I found no one there, because the meetings had not been called for, the friends to whom I had addressed letters requesting them to call meetings could not hold them, not having received their letters.
I could bring to your attention a quantity of faults in the administration of the post office. Dr. Sheppard looks more after his medical practice than after his post office, where he gets young girls quite incompetent to replace him.
Therefore, in the interest of the public the removal of Dr. Sheppard from the postmaster-


Hon. Mr. BLAIR.: ship of Joliette should take place, and I beg for it with great confidence.
I have the honour to be, sir,
Your obedient servant, (Signed) CHAS. BASINET.



F. O. DUGAS, M.P.

[Stage Direction]
The Hon. Mr. Mulock,
Postmaster General,
Ottawa.
This evidence was considered conclusive, and therefore any inquiry would apparently have served no useful purpose. Therefore no formal inquiry was held. The postmaster, since his removal from office, has written denying the charges against him and asking for an inquiry.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. CASGRAIN-by Mr. Borden (Halifax)-asked :
1.	Who are the postmasters of the county of Joliette whose commissions have been revoked since the month of June, 1896, up to to-day ?
2.	Who has been the substitute in each case ?
3.	What has been the cause of each change ?
The POSTMASTER GENERAL (Hon. Wm. Mulock).: I would ask the hon. gentleman to make a motion.



GROUNDING OF THE SS. ' TIVERTON.'

Mr. BENNETT asked :: 1.	Was the ss. ' Tiverton ' grounded in the month of April, 1901, between Montreal and Quebec ?
2.	If a pilot was in charge of said vessel, was he duly licensed by the Montreal Harbour Commissioners ?
3.	Was an inquiry had into the circumstances connected with such grounding of said vessel ?
4.	Did the board of inquiry censure the pilot of being at fault, or did they exonerate him ?
5.	If the finding of the board was that the pilot was in fault, does the Department of Marine consider that the said pilot's services should be dispensed with and his license cancelled ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES (Hon. James Sutherland) :: 1.	Yes.
2.	Yes.
3.	Yes.
4.	The court declined to censure him.
5.	The court did not find that the pilot was in fault, but the department has learned that since the accident to the steamer in May last, this pilot has been superannuated by the Montreal Pilotage Commissioners.
I would like to add that this answer was furnished to me by the department; but on reading the judgment of the court, I would be inclined to think that a different construction might be put upon it, for they could not censure the pilot. The Implication was that he was not to blame, although perhaps he was to blame to some extent, but it was the Pilotage Board that was to blame for keeping him in that position after

he had sent in his formal notice that he was disabled from holding the position.



MANITOBA GRAIN INSPECTION.

Mr. DOUGLAS asked :: 1.	What changes have been made in the standard grain grades of the Manitoba grain inspection district since the year 1899 ?
2.	If made, by whom made, through what medium were they made, and what is the nature of such changes ?


The MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE (Hon. Sir Richard Cartwright) :: 1.	No. 2 hard and No. 1 northern wheat have been consolidated as No. 1 Manitoba northern, and a new grade called No. 3 Manitoba northern has been established. Commercial grades of oats known as Nos. 1 and 2 Alberta have also been established.
2.	As regards the wheat, the change was made by Act of parliament, vide 1 Edward, chapter 24, amending 62-63 Victoria, chapter 25. The reasons therefor are set forth in the discussion on the Bill, vide ' Hansard ' of April 16th, 1891, commencing at the bottom of page 3094 and continuing on 3095.
As regards the oats, the change was made by the Western Grain Standards Board, which board is established by Act 55-56 Victoria, chapter 23, section 15, and authority given to the board to make changes of grade under certain conditions as per section 4 of the schedule to the Act 62-63 Victoria, chapter 25.



USE OF FRENCH IN ONTARIO COURTS.

Mr. MARCIL (Bonaventure) (Translation) asked :: 1. Has the government received the following resolution adopted by the St. Jean Baptiste Society of Ottawa ?
If so, what answer did it give ?
The St. Jean Baptiste Society, of Ottawa.
Copy of a resolution passed on Sunday, April 13, 1902, at a special meeting called by Mr. J. U. Vincent, the president :-
Whereas Mrs. Joseph Roi, Duke street, Ottawa, having brought a judicial complaint against one Larochel, appeared before Magistrate O'Keefe, of Ottawa, to give her evidence ;
And whereas that lady demanded the privilege of giving her evidence in her mother tongue, because speaking English only imperfectly, she feared to express herself wrongly and to be misunderstood ;
And whereas Magistrate O'Keefe, disregarding that legitimate demand, directed her to express herself in English, and then dismissed her complaint, condemning her at the same time to pay a fine of $2 for contempt of court, because she dared to persist in her demand ;	.
Be it resolved, that the St. Jean Baptiste Society, of Ottawa, in the name of the French Canadians of the Capital, energetically protest against the unjust and arbitrary decision of Magistrate O'Keefe in this instance ;
Be it resolved that this incident be brought to the knowledge of the Minister of Justice, and that the French Canadians of the Capital do beg of the hon. minister to kindly take the
necessary means in order that in future a like injustice may not be repeated, in a country* where equity should be dispensed irrespective of nationality.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE (Hon. Charles Fitzpatrick).: The Department of Justice has received the resolution referred to in the question. In answer to that question, I am obliged to say that the government have no control over the magistrate nor over the proceedings which took place in this court.



WORKS ON RIVER SAINTE ANNE.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. CASGRAIN-by Mr. Monk-asked:
1.	What price per running foot was paid for the timber used for the protective works on the east side of the River Sainte Anne, at Sainte Anne de la Perade, during the years 1900 and 1901 ?
2.	What price per toise was paid for the stone used in the said works ?
3.	What price .was paid for iron, from whom
was it purchased, and what is the total amount paid for the said iron ?	'
The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS (Hon. J. I. Tarte).: 1.	4 cents.
2.	$7.00.
3.	3 cents per pound.
Total amount paid, $86.29.
Mr. CASGRAIN-by Mr. Monk-asked :
1.	What amount has been expended to make the protective works on the east side of the River Sainte Anne, at St. Anne de la Perade, during the years 1900 and 1901 ?
2.	Under whose superintendence were these works done ?
3.	Who paid the workmen who were employed on the said works ?
4.	Did the paymaster of the government himself pay each of the said workmen, or has the money intended to pay said workmen been remitted either to Hermenegilde Leduc, or to Ernest Valine, or to Joseph Hivon, to be paid to the workmen ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS (Hon. J. I. Tarte).: 1.	$3,289.44.
2.	Superintendence of J. E. Vallee.
3	and 4. The departmental paymaster paid all men who presented themselves for payment when he went there. Some of them however, had gone to the lumber woods after having received money from J. H. Leduc to whom they had given receipts. The paymaster repaid these amounts to Leduc.
Mr. CASGRAIN-by Mr. Borden, Halifax-asked :
1.	Were Ernest Vallee, Hermenegilde Leduc, Jimmy Rivard, Joseph Hivon, Napoleon Mar-ceau, Jeffrey Jolin and Felix LaUeche in the employment of the government during the years 1900 and 1901 ?
2.	If so, what was the employment of each of them, the salary of each per day, the number of days they were employed, and the total amount received by each of them ?

The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS
(Hon. J. I. Tarte).
1. Yes.
2.-
J. E. VallSe, inspector, 34 days at $3 .. $102 00 H. Ledue, carpenter, 25 days at $2.. ..	50 00
J. Rivard, carpenter, 6 days at $2	 12 00
J. Hivon, labourer, 17 days at 90 cents..	15	30N. Marceau, carpenter, 14i days at $2.. ..	29	00J. Jolin, carpenter, 13 days at $1.25.. ..	16	25F. Lafleche, labourer, 8 days at 90 cents..	7	20



YUKON TERRITORY.-CONSTRUCTION OP TELEGRAPH LINE.

Mr. SAM HUGHES (Victoria).: Mr. Speaker, before proceeding with the Orders of the Day I should like to say that some time ago, in the absence of the Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Tarte), there was a question on the order paper about the cost of the Yukon telegraph. The hon. gentleman incidentally remarked to me in the corridor, a day or two before, that he had all the information and would give it to me. When the question came up before the House in the absence of the hon. minister the statement was made that the information was not obtainable.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS (Hon. .T. I. Tarte).: I do not remember the question that was asked. If the hon. gentleman (Mr. Hughes, Victoria) will be good enough to tell me what it was I will be happy to give all the information that is available.



SUPPLY.-LONGSHOREMEN'S STRIKE AT HALIFAX.

[Stage Direction]
The PRIME MINISTER (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier) moved that the House go again into Committee of Supply.
['I do not suppose there is any objection to the change, but it\n\nwould have been better to have followed the rules of the House, and to have given notice of the amendment. I will not object, however. This is an added clause which amends a previous section of the same Act. However, if the lion, gentleman is satisfied, let it pass, and it can be amended, if necessary, in the Senate.\nBill reported, read the third time and passed.']
Mr. B. RUSSELL (Hants).: Mr. Speaker, before the motion is put I wish to be permitted to make a reference to a matter affecting] the constituency represented by the hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Borden, Halifax). It seems that a strike has taken place in the city of Halifax amongst a number of men employed in the shipping trade and the strike is one of very serious proportions. I have seen several references to the matter in the newspapers coming from that city and it seems that a sympathetic strike has been organized in connection with the strike of the longshoremen involving some 1,000 or 1,400 men. I suppose the government have had their attention called to the matter. I wish to know to what extent they have interposed, as I think it was their duty to interpose in connection with it. The matter is one of extreme importance to the port of Halifax which is very well known in this House and which is recognized by the whole Dominion as one of the most important ports of this Dominion-I would say the most important port that we have, taking it all the year round. This port is open all the year round, Mr. CASGRAIN.
it has great advantages not possessed by other ports although some of them, in other respects, are of greater importance. So that, the matter is not one of purely local interest, but it is of general interest, affecting the Dominion as a whole. I should like to know if the government can give us any information regarding this matter and if they can tell us whether any steps, and if so, what steps have been taken in connection with it.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL (Hon. Wm. Mulock).: Mr. Speaker, in reply to the hon. gentleman (Mr. Russell) I would say that the attention of the Department of Labour was called to the strike in question by a telegram received on behalf of the striking longshoremen last week. The same day the Deputy Minister of Labour was sent from Ottawa to Halifax to lend his friendly offices in order to bring about a settlement and after an intervention extending over a little more than a day I am glad to say that he was able to bring both parties to an understanding and on the Saturday following the men returned to work. The strike had been in force a week or ten days, it involved some 600 or 700 longshoremen who were directly parties to it and who were directly concerned and several hundred other workmen who were described as sympathetic strikers went out on strike at the same time. I may also add that there was danger of the strike extending and including many others who, would most probably have taken part but have not done so. The arrangement come to was mutually satisfactory to the men, the companies and the merchants interested, was reduced to writing, agreed to by the men in meeting and signed by the companies and employers. I received a report from the Deputy Minister of Labour on the subject and I might trouble the House by reading the conclusion of it which will , perhaps more clearly dispose of the matter. After having arranged a mutual agreement between the parties it was necessary for him to bring it to the attention of the strikers in meeting, and to the attention of the companies. He proceeds to refer to the agreement in the following words :
After the terms of both agreements were read to the meeting a motion in favour of acceptance was carried without a dissenting voice, and the president and secretary of the Longshoremen's Association were authorized to sign' the agreements on its behalf. There were over 1,000 strikers present at this meeting. Motions were then carried, declaring the longshoremen's strike and the three sympathetic strikes at an end, and all agreed to return to work on the following morning. A noticeable feature of this meeting was the perfect order which prevailed throughout, and the unanimity which characterized the acceptance of all resolutions which were put to it. As evidence of the good feeling which appears to have resulted from the disposition on the part of the employers to negotiate in a friendly spirit with the men in arriving at the terms of agreement, I should possibly mention

that a proposal of cheers for the steamship agents and other employers, received as hearty a response as any other like proposals which followed the conclusion of this meeting.
The agreement itself is a somewhat lengthy document, and certain provisions in regard to the rates of wages and hours of labour, Sunday and holiday labour, work performed on stranded or wrecked vessels, and under other exceptional circumstances, as well as other conditions governing employment. The agreement also contains a clause intended to prevent the possible re-occurrence of a strike or lock-out, by requiring that 30 days notice in writing shall be given before any change in the terms of the agreement can be made by either party, and that no strike or lock-out shall be declared without 30 days' notice in writing.
On Saturday, the morning following the ratification of agreement at the mass meeting of strikers, the fish-handers, coal workers and coopers, concerned in the sympathetic strikes, resumed work, and work was recommenced along the wharfs by the longshoremen, at the docks where there was loading or unloading to be done.
I have every reason to believe that the settlement as arranged by this agreement has given mutual satisfaction to the parties interested, and that an immediate settlement of the strike has been of the very greatest importance to the commercial and other business Interests of the port of Halifax. Moreover, Judging from the nature of a number of interviews which I had with different persons, both employers and employees, subsequent to the settlement of the strike, concerning the prevention of possible future differences, I am led to believe that the principle of conciliation and arbitration has become more generally appreciated and is likely to play an increasingly important part in the future. As evidence of the appreciation of the services rendered through the good offices of the department under the Act, in regard to the present strike, I need only add that at the mass meeting of the strikers, called for the purpose of ratifying the agreement, the motion extending a vote of thanks to the department was carried unanimously, and with the very greatest enthusiasm, while the appended letter from the chairman of the committee of the steamship agents and merchants concerned, is sufficiently clear in its expression of their feelings in the matter.
Beard of Trade, Halifax, April 12, 1902.
W. I.. McKenzie King, Esq.,
Deputy Minister of Labour.
Dear Sir,-The steamship agents and the merchants of Halifax, concerned in the recent strike of the longshoremen, desire to place on record their appreciation of your services in arranging a settlement which has been accepted by both parties to the dispute. They feel that a prolongation of the trouble has been mainly averted by the tact, good judgment and impartiality shown by you, and in making this acknowledgment, believe that they are expressing the sentiments of the longshoremen as well as their own.
Yours truly,
(Sgd.) G. S. CAMPBELL,
Chairman.
I have the honour to he, Sir,
Your obedient servant,
(Sgd. >
w. l. McKenzie king, Deputy Minister of Labour.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: We have had an exhibition on the other side of
the House of a very pleasant little mutual admiration society, and the only thing lacking to make it perfect is the absence of the sweet little girl to present the Minister of Labour with a beautiful bouquet of roses, paid for by himself, as a mark of appreciation for what he has done. The people of Canada, no doubt as well as the members of this House, will feel deeply grateful to the hon. member for Hants (Mr. Russell) for bringing up this important subject, and allowing the Minister of Labour such a favourable opportunity of telling us what we have been reading in the press for several days past. The whole little play reminds me of what we sometimes see in country newspapers where the townspeople are about to present a gentleman with an oil painting of himself, and the recipient of which expresses himself as being completely taken by surprise, yet makes a most appropriate and fitting reply. The Minister of Labour comes down here with a beautifully written document that has been prepared some time ago. Of course he is quite taken by surprise. But for the purpose of unloading that document upon this House and upon the country, he gets his handy mail of all work on that side of the House, to ask him a question.
Mr.	D.	C. FRASER (Guysborougli).	I
am going to give something fresh to the House.
Some liou. MEMBERS. Oh, no.


Duncan Cameron Fraser: Curiously enough the Halifax 'Herald' which has just arrived contains something worth reading, and which refers to this matter. It will be noticed now that I am going to quote from the organ of the hon. leader of the opposition.
Mr.	R.	L. BORDEN (Halifax).	I	beg
the hon. gentleman's pardon. The hon. gentleman is making a statement which is not correct.


Duncan Cameron Fraser: I do not mean that the gentleman (Mr. Borden) controls the ' Herald,' or that it is his special organ, but I	do say that it is the organ	of	theparty	of	which he is the honoured	head.
This is what the Halifax ' Herald ' says, and it will be seen that it is a little more complimentary than the felicitous remarks of the hon. member for Grey (Mr. Sproule) : The longshoremen's strike is over to the great relief of all concerned. In bringing this about too high tribute cannot be paid to Mr. W. L. Mackenzie King, Deputy Minister of Labour. He arrived from Ottawa on Thursday evening, end in twenty-five hours had everything arranged. A 'Herald' reporter interviewed Mr. King at the Halifax hotel last evening after tile longshoremen's meeting. Mr. King was up to his eyes in business, and was besieged by those who were anxious to offer him congratulations. These included many who were prominent both among the employers of labour and in labour circles.
That is the opinion of that great organ of

tlie Conservative party on Mr. King and on what he did. The Halifax ' Herald ' continues :
A Personal Impression of the Deputy Minister of Labour.
Mr. King is a very young man to fill with such success the important position which is his. He may be thirty, but he does not look it. In countenance he is almost boyish, with nis smooth-shaven face and quick, alert movements. He is brimful of energy and enthusiasm. But the impression of youthfulness is dissipated after a few moments' conversation, for even the casual observer is impressed with thp fact that this is a man of affairs, level-headed and decisive.
That is the impression Mr. King leaves on the leading minds of the party opposite :
Mr. King believes the labour problem is the problem of the age, and is engrossed heart and soul in his work.
I wish hon. gentlemen opposite to listen to this with bated breath :
The impression he leaves Is that he is a fine combination of brains, energy and optimism- just the kind of man into whose hands the Lord gives the thing that needs to he done, and done swiftly. To such natures the world's work naturally comes.
I read that as showing two things. First, the appreciation which this organ of the great Conservative party has of the work done by Mr. King, and second, to congratulate the minister upon the settlement of that strike, notwithstanding the little play that the member for Grey sees in this matter. I congratulate the minister that a great strike of that kind was so speedily settled. Twenty-five hours was a very short time in which to arrive at a settlement. We haye been amply paid in the province of Nova Scotia for all the expenditure we have incurred in connection with that department. We should all lie very thankful. It is my opinion that very often the strikers a$ well as the employers are at fault in these matters, and so we have to congratulate ourselves that there are methods that can toe used to bring capital and labour together, and to enable them to get along in peace and harmony.


Hon.   WM@: ROSS (Victoria, N.S.) While we are all glad that this strike has been settled, we have no guarantee that other strikes may not crop up in different parts of the Dominion. Would it not be well for ns to consider the compulsory Arbitration Act passed in New Zealand and which constitutes a conciliation court presided over by a judge of the Supreme Court. The New Zealand Act has been adopted by the commonwealth of Australia, so that both these countries have a law for the compulsory settlement of strikes when they occur.


Mr. A. W. PUTTEE (Winnipeg).: I am glad the Minister of Labour was not taken by surprise when this matter was brought up. I am of opinion that this settlement 1


Duncan Cameron Fraser: is of such importance that it deserves to haye the wide publicity that can be given to it by a short discussion in this House. A very serious disturbance has not only been settled, but a more serious disturbance has been averted. I wish to take this opportunity to bring to the notice of the Minister of Labour, certain amendments to the Conciliation Act which I have on the Order paper, and I trust he will take them into consideration, because they are framed with the hope that they will extend the application of our Conciliation Act. In this case under discussion the prime credit for this settlement is due to the Longshoremen's Union, who telegraphed to Ottawa asking for conciliation. It is oftentimes considered a sign of weakness that either party to the strike should apply for conciliation, and for that reason both parties are often deterred from asking interference. The amendments) I have foreshadowed are calculated to get over that defect in the Act. When a serious dispute of this kind can toe settled, it points to us the reasonableness of trying to settle other disputes. Some of the most serious disputes we have had last year have not been shortened by one day because of the Conciliation Act. It is to try and increase the scope of that Act, that I would ask the Minister of Labour to help me to have my amendments adopted, especially now that he has evidence that a great deal of good can toe done to settle trade disputes by legislation in this parliament.


Mr. W. H. BENNETT (East Simcoe).: It is, I assume, the business of this Labour Department not only to settle disputes, but to try and prevent them. I have heard of late that there is a probability of an extensive strike among the s'aw-mili employees on the shores of the Georgian bay. These men are obliged to work from half-past six in the morning to six at night with one hour for dinner, making ten and a half hours work instead of ten hours. Before any strike occurs it would be well that the minister should at once commission his deputy to interview the employers with the object of making the working day ten hours at most. As the Deputy Minister of Labour is rather busy at present, perhaps he might commence hist operations in the neighbourhood of Ottawa, and prevail on some of the saw-mill owners in this neighbourhood to reduce the hours of work of the men in the mills to those of men employed in other avocations, and then the same rule might he extended to other parts of the province.


Mr. EDWARDS.: May I ask the hon. gentleman what hours the saw-mill men work in Ottawa ?


Samuel Hughes: Perhaps the hon. member for Russell (Mr. Edwards) can tell.


William Humphrey Bennett: I understand that they work from half-past six until six. If they

work from seven until sis, I am glad to know it.


William Cameron Edwards: Those are the hours- from seven to six.


William Humphrey Bennett: In view of that fact, then, it will be very easy for the Deputy Minister of Labour to go to the Georgian Bay and prevail upon the mill owners in that neighbourhood to accept the same hours, and prevent, a threatened strike. Again, let me remind the Minister of Labour of this fact, in which I shall be borne out by the Minister of Public Works-that the Department of Customs or the Department of Trade and Commerce, I do not know which, saw fit last season to allow American tugs to come in and. in defiance of the coasting laws, to be employed on the Georgian Bay.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I have nothing to do with that.


William Humphrey Bennett: I understand that while the Minister of Public Works did us the honour last season to pay a visit to the Georgian Bay, American tugs were pointed out to him being employed, while Canadian tugs at times were tied up at the docks. Perhaps there might be a strike among the marine men because of the employment of these American vessels, and I hope the Minister of Labour will prevail on his colleagues not to permit any American tugs during the coming season to be employed on the Georgian Bay, in contravention of the coasting laws, especially in view of the fact that the United States will not allow Canadian tugs to be employed in their waters. I trust that these matters will engage tbe attention of the lion. Minister of Labour, and that we may hope to hear at an early day that the deputy minister has appeared on the Georgian Bay and has endeavoured to bring these mill owners to that sense of duty and fair play which will lead them to limit the time at which the men shall work.


Robert Laird Borden: I wish to say that while I do not in the least desire to take from Mr. King, the Deputy Minister of Labour, any credit to which he is entitled, I would like to point out that the present is not the first occasion on which strikes have been settled, and settled in a very short time, in the city of Halifax. In past years there have been strikes, and they have been settled quite as satisfactorily, I think, as the recent one, and that without the intervention of the Department of Labour-in fact, before the Department of Labour was created. I would further like to say that I consider that that result was very largely due, as no doubt the result in this case has been due to the good sense, good judgment and forbearance or the labour men of Halifax and their employers. I am glad that the Department of Labour has accomplished something in this case. I recognize that Mr. King is a gentleman of
industry and also a gentleman of some considerable frankness, because although hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House have told us that the exodus in this country to the United States had ceased long ago, the editor of the ' Labour Gazette ' has told us from time to time in its columns that it still continues in many sections of the country. I think we ought to recognize Mr. King's frankness in this respect, and acknowledge that he is more accurate in details of that character than some of the hon. gentlemen who speak from the Treasury Benches in this House. I would like to correct a statement of my hon. friend from Guysborough (Mr. Fraser), who was at first of the absolute opinion that the Halifax ' Herald ' was my personal organ.


Duncan Cameron Fraser: No, never.


Robert Laird Borden: The hon. gentleman so stated.


Duncan Cameron Fraser: When I said that it was the hon. gentleman's personal organ, I meant his organ politically. I knew that the hon. gentleman had nothing to do with the paper at all, as owning it as personal property. '


Robert Laird Borden: The hon. gentleman is just as far off in his second statement as he was in the first. So far as I am aware, and I think I have some knowledge of the facts, the Liberal-Conservative party has not the slightest control over the editorial or other utterances of the Halifax ' Herald.' It is a paper published by an incorporated company ; it has never pretended to be under the control of the Liberal-Conservative party, nor has the Liberal-Conservative party ever exercised or attempted to exercise the slightest control over its utterances.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House went into Committee of Supply.
Railways chargeable to capital, $1,975,000.
["The hon. gentleman is just as far off in his second statement as he was in the first. So far as I am aware, and I think I have some knowledge of the facts, the Liberal-Conservative party has not the slightest control over the editorial or other utterances of the Halifax ' Herald.' It is a paper published by an incorporated company ; it has never pretended to be under the control of the Liberal-Conservative party, nor has the Liberal-Conservative party ever exercised or attempted to exercise the slightest control over its utterances."]
The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I am ready to take up the item which you have read, but I have had a request from one of the hon. gentlemen opposite, in which he said the ex-Minister of Railways (Hon. Mr. Haggart) joined, that these items might stand until we had the report of the Public Accounts Committee, which they expected would complete its labours during the current week. I have no wish to refuse to accede to the hon. gentleman's request if he desires that that course shall be taken ; but otherwise I will go on.


John Graham Haggart: I thought the hon. gentleman was going to make his statement on going into Committee of Supply, for under the rules of the House he could not make it now, because his observations would have to be confined to the particular item before the committee. I made the suggestion to the premier, who told me that the estimates of the Minister of Railways were

coming up, that as we need the report of the Public Accounts Committee, and we have a witness still to examine, which I thought would be done this week, it would be more convenient to have the statement made at the beginning of next week. I understood the premier to agree to that, and I suppose the hon. minister is carrying out the suggestion.


The MINISTER OP RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: My right hon. colleague the Prime Minister, mentioned to me that the request had been made, and asked if I had any objection. I had none. At the same time, I think it will be more convenient, if agreeable to the committee, that any general statement I should make-and I desire to make one before going into the details of the estimates-should be made with the Chairman in the Chair. The discussion will then be less formal and more convenient. That procedure was adopted with the consent of the House on a previous occasion. We will then let the railway items stand until a later day, but I would like to have it understood now whether the hon. gentleman will agree to my suggestion.


John Graham Haggart: I have no objection to our adopting this procedure with the unanimous consent of the House. With the Chairman in the Chair, we can have the fullest latitude in discussing every item in reference to the Intercolonial Railway and not be limited to the rules of the House.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Then, under the circumstances the railway items will stand, it .being understood the general discussion is limited to the opening discussion.
Item allowed to stand.
Experimental farms, $80,000.	[DOT]


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: This is the usual vote, but I may say that the vote the last year or two has not been found quite sufficient to meet the increasing demands of this work, and in the supplementary estimates for next year I shall have to ask for a slight addition. The work is being continued on the same lines as hitherto, but is gradually increasing and expanding. Last year the vote taken did not quite cover the expenditure, and we found at the end of the year a number of accounts left over which had to be paid out of the vote for this year. The increased expenditure is due to the extension of the work, the greater calls upon the staff, and to some extent to increases in salaries and wages. The expense of living has increased in the country lately, and it has been found necessary also to give some recognition of the efficiency of men during a long period of service by an addition in some instances to their salaries and by increasing in general the pay of a good many of the staff.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: How is the expenditure divided among the different farms ?


John Graham Haggart: 


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: It is not divided in the vote, but is all lumped together. The Auditor General's Report shows the expenditures on these farms :
The Ottawa Experimental Farm. .$48,400 Nappan	"	'[DOT]	..	9,700Brandon	"	"	..	8,100Indian Head	"	"	..	7,200Agassiz	"	"	..	6,400


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Where is the increase ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: The increase is not shown in this vote, but I will have to ask for an additional amount in the supplementary estimates, so that at the 1st of July next there will be a clean sweep. The same thing had to be done on one or two occasions by my predecessors, so that although the vote for the farms during the past ten years, in the main estimates, has been the same, there has been in every year, as a rule, some increase in the expenditure, which is shown in the Auditor General's Report. I find that it will be necessary to ask for a supplementary vote for this year, and, in view of the circumstances of the last ten years, I think it will be necessary to ask for the supplementary vote for the ensuing year also. Just what the extent of that vote will be, I cannot say at present.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I take it that the $80,000 voted last year included both main and supplementary estimates.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Last year a large number of accounts were left over and have been paid out of this year's vote. That will make necessary the supplementary vote for the current year. With this supplementary vote I shall be able to pay the bills and start with a'clean slate. But, as I say, the experience of the last ten years lead me to believe that the $80,000 now asked for will not carry on the work of the experimental farms in a thoroughly efficient way and that a supplementary vote will be needed.


Samuel Hughes: Is the hon. minister taking steps to establish farms in the northern part of the country, in Alberta and Saskatchewan ? There are vast areas there that, in the opinion of those who claim to be able to judge, are better adapted for farming than the more southern regions, where the present farms are located. In a very few years, probably, settlers will be filling up that country, and it would be a great service to the people if experiments were carried out in advance, so that they might know what to sow, when to sow and otherwise be advised as to the best means of taking advantage of the conditions in that country.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I have been frequently asked for additional branch farms in various parts of the country. The portion referred to has made

a request through the representative in this House from Saskatchewan (Mr. Davis).


Samuel Hughes: And how about Alberta ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I am not sure, I think that a request came from there within the last year or two. The establishing' of more branch farms is not within my power, the number being limited by the Experimental Farms Act. I fear that if I were to get parliament to amend that Act, we should be obliged to go to considerable lengths, and establish as many as eight or ten new branch farms. These could hardly cost less than $5,000 a year each, and might easily cost $10,000 each a year. I confess that, while I realize the good that could be done by these farms,
I think that greater good could be done to the agricultural interests of Canada by spending that money in some otherl way.


Samuel Hughes: What is the object of an experimental farm if it is not to instruct the people in the development in important sections of the country. The farm at Brandon, for instance, covers Manitoba and a couple of hundred miles west; the farm at Indian Head covers the southern region of which it is the centre. But the experiments carried on there cannot be used by farmers in the northern sections as a guide in their operations, and they have a good deal of trouble, and lose, it may be, several crops, before they find out just what the conditions require. In the northern part of Saskatchewan and Alberta there are vast areas of land that are not surveyed, much less settled, that in a few years will be the home of millions of people. I would urge upon the minister the necessity of establishing at least two farms in this northern country.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Has the hon. minister increased the number of the staff in these experimental farms ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: There is no increase at the Central Experimental Farm, but there have been increases at Brandon and Indian Head. At each of those farms there has been appointed a secretarial assistant to aid the manager in his work. The managers, Mr. Bedford at Brandon and Mr. McKay at Indian Head, are being constantly called upon to make trips through the country and address farmers' meetings, yet their office work was so great that they could not compass all that was required of them. It was thought better to employ a young man at a comparatively low rate to relieve these more important officers and leave them free to do wider and more useful work.


Mr. ROSAMOND.: No doubt the minister is spending this money in a useful way. At one time, hon. gentlemen opposite were opposed to these extra expenses and thought that the experimental farms should be selfsustaining. I would like to have the opinion of the minister as to whether this money is a valuable asset to the farmers of Canada.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I am glad to tell the hon. gentleman (Mr. Rosamond) that, if he will go back to the time when these experimental farms were established he will find me on record as concurring fully in the establishment of these farms and saying that I thought a great work might be done for the farmers by this means. As a matter of fact, I was a member of the committee on agricultural industries on whose report these farms were established. I have always believed in them heartily and completely. The work which has been done by the experimental farm has been of the greatest value to the ^development and progress of agriculture in Canada. I am happy to say that this has been accomplished, first, by the organization and the idea, and secondly, by^ the happy choice of the officers, and especially of the director who has charge of these farms, and has carried them on in a way most acceptable to the farmers.


Bennett Rosamond: I have no doubt that the officers in charge of the experimental farms are very valuable, and have rendered great service to the farming community. Can the minister say off-hand what amount is yearly expended by his department for the benefit of the farming community ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I	think the estimates will show that. I suppose the hon. member means expenditures made directly for that purpose, because all the work of the department is meant to be In the interest of the farmers. I may mention, however, the following items: The experimental farms, $80,000 ; printing and distribution of the reports and bulletins of those farms, $4,000 ; the fumigating stations which, in a different way, have helped very much to protect the fruit-growing and forestry interests, $3,000 ; the commissioner's branch for agriculture, $210,000 is asked for next year; and the vote for Professor Robertson's branch, $40,000. I suppose I might also consider the cattle quarantine vote as directly in the interest of agriculture, although it has also much to do with the public health.


Bennett Rosamond: The other evening the minister made a statement with reference to the cheese industry which, I was sorry to hear. He stated that it had not been as successful this year as in previous years. I notice also that he proposed to spend a sum of money for the purpose of improving that industry, and I am personally in favour of such an effort being made. But I would like to call the attention of the government to the fact that if this industry is not prospering under the conditions which have heretofore prevailed, then I presume one member of the government may

be expected to say that the farmers ought to get out of that industry, and turn then-hands to something else. I do not think myself that would be advisable, but I am pointing out to the minister that such a conclusion may very properly be drawn from recent ministerial statements. For my part, I think it is quite a proper expenditure, and I am glad to see this industry encouraged ; but I think the government ought to have the same regard to other industries, which are quite as well worthy of encouragement as the cheese industry.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I quite agree with the hon. gentleman that anything in the way of investigation into the methods of any industry would be valuable to that industry, in the same way as the work we propose to do with regard to cheese curing would be valuable to that branch, and would be worthy of consideration. We have, I think, shown evidence of our regard for other industries, but perhaps it would be hardly proper to discuss them) under this item.


Mr. BLAIN.: Were any experiments made on the farm last year with respect to the curing of cheese ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: We do not make any cheese on the Experimental Farm, the dairy there makes butter altogether. The experiments that were made in connection with cheese curing were made in outside factories under the direction of Professor Robertson's branch.


Mr. ERB.: On this item I would ask the minister, who is it that directs the officials of the Experimental Farm in making the experiments that are carried on during the year ? I find in the last report of the Experimental Farm, page 272, an account of a feeding experiment. Two lots of cows were fed; one lot on barley, oats and oil-meal dry; another lot on bran, and gluten meal wet. The tables are given here, and show the quantity of milk given by each cow, both morning and evening, and the butter fat contained in the milk. Now to my mind this table shows nothing whatever, it proves nothing, although the statement is made that the result of this experiment seems to show a slight difference in favour of the dry feed. But in the one case the feed was given dry, and in the other case a different class of food was given wet. Now, we do not know whether the difference in results was owing to the moisture in the one case and to the dry character of the food in the other case, or to the different kinds of food. If the same kind of food had been used, in the one case dry and in the other case wet, then the results might be of some comparative value. As it is, they prove nothing, and I think the officers of the farm might have devoted their time and energy to something of more value to the- farming community.


Bennett Rosamond: 


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: The experiments carried on in regard to the feeding of animals are done under the special management of the agriculturist, Mrs Grisdale, but under the supervision of the director. The comparison perhaps would have been more complete if the same food had been used dry in the one case and wet in the other. The composition of those two foods, gluten and oil, is very similar.


Dilman Kinsey Erb: It is not shown whether the difference is due to the moisture in the one case as against the other, or to the difference in the composition of the feeds.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What stock is kept at the Central Farm now, and what experiments are being carried on at the present time ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: The annual report gives a statement of pure bred animals kept at the experimental farm as follows :
Shorthorns.
1	bull calf, Lord Dinsdale (imp.) 6 months old.
3	cows (imp.), 3, 5, and 8 years old.
2	cows, 10 and 12 years old.
2	heifers (imp.), 1 year mid.
1 calf (imp.), 1 year old.
Ayrshires.
1 bull, Twin Beauty (imp.), 2J years old.
4	cows (imp.), 3 to 6 years old.
3	heifers (imp.), 2i years old.
1 heifer, 1J years old.
Guernseys.
1 bull, Wedgewood, 7 years old.	*
1 bull calf (imp. in dam), 5 months old.
4	cows (3 imp.), 3 to 6 years old.
1 cow, Canadian bred, 3 years old.
1 heifer, 18 months old.
1 heifer calf, 5 months old.
These are the pure breds. There are also certain grades. I have not a list that I can turn to immediately of the grade animals but in the herds there were these pure bred animals and a few grade cows. There are i) milking cows, Ayrshire and Ayrshire grades,
9 milking cows, Shorthorn and Shorthorn grades, and 9 milking cows, Guernsey and Guernsey grades. I think that one Guernsey grade cow is really a French Canadian grade and not of Guernsey blood. In addition we have breeding bulls and some young bulls which have been bred on the farm and which are offered for sale at the present time. We have also a number of animals which we buy for the purpose of feeding during the winter on the farm and sell when they are ready for the market.


Mr. GILMOUR.: How many of that kind ? The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE. There were about 120 head of cattle last winter on the farm.


James Gilmour: Of that kind ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Of all kinds.


James Gilmour: 
The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Nearly 70. When I say that I mean the number of cattle ready to be sold this year. There are also some young animals which we feed from their birth upwards but which are not ready for the butcher yet. I think there will be between 60 and 70 which have either gone to the butcher or will in the near future.


James Gilmour: What is intended to be demonstrated by the feeding of 70 head of cattle every year ?	*


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: We try to feed them on different combinations of food to see which would make the greatest profits, but for the last year or two, we have been rather trying experiments of feeding dehorned ovt not dehorned steers, and feeding steers running loose as compared with those tied up and also feeding two year olds, three year olds and four year olds. We take some two year olds, some three year olds and some four year olds and feed them on the same rations so as to see which make the best gain at the lowest cost. We have the barns so constructed that we have rows of stalls holding 9 animals to the row, in which we have two year olds, three year olds and four year olds. Then we have two lots one tied and one running loose in boxes and we are comparing the results of this experiment. This has been going on for two years.


Mr. McGOWAN.: What is the effect of feeding loose as compared with tied up cattle ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: We have not been able to come to any conclusion which would enable us to sav that there is an advantage one way or the other. When we began it there were a number of statements made in the agricultural press that if animals were dehorned and allowed to run loose in the boxes they would do better. We have carried on these experiments, not only on the experimental farm here, but also at Nappan, Brandon and Indian Head and the results have been somewhat conflicting. There has been nothing to indicate a clear line of advantage in one case or the other.


John McGowan: May I ask the hon. minister what he does with the surplus stock of pure bred cattle ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: We sell it.


John McGowan: By private sale or auction ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: When we can, we sell it by private sale, and we have sent some animals to the auction sales which have taken place in the province of Ontario recently.


Mr. JOHNSTON (Cardwell).: Have you some for sale now ?	.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Yes, there are several animals for sale. There the several bulls for sale of the three breeds.


Robert Johnston: What is the age of these animals ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: They are quite young calves. I do not think there are any over a year.


Mr. KAULBACH.: From the experience at the Experimental Farm, would the hon. minister inform me which is the best description of cattle for stock raising, whether the shorthorn Ayrshire, or Holstein ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I do not think I would like to say that there have been any definite results so far. The dairy herds have only been established very recently on a comparative basis. We have to-day 9 representatives each of the Shorthorns and Shorthorn grades, of the Ayr-shires and Ayrshires grades and of the Guernseys and Guernsey grades, and we are compiling the results of their production. I am not prepared to give an opinion as to their special qualities and as a matter of fact, we know that men engaged in stock breeding have very strong predelictions for their own particular favourite breeds and it would be a very difficult task to satisfy them that a particular breed was not the best. All we can do is to show what the herds on the farm do and make a record of it. We publish the records in the reports and the people will have to judge, what, under their particular conditions and circumstances would suit them best.


Charles Edwin Kaulbach: My reason for referring to the Holstein breed in the manner I have done is this : some years ago, the Holstein was looked upon very favourably, and a very large number of that breed were imported into my county. Experience has shown, however, that they are not serviceable for beef. They produce a poor descrip-ton of meat, whereas the Shorthorn is far preferable in that respect. I want to know if that has been the experience of those who have given their attention to the matter at the Experimental Farm.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I think I may say that the Shorthorn is a better beef animal than the Holstein. The Holstein is generally looked upon as one of the dairy breeds and I think it is pretty generally accepted amongst farmers to be a fact that the dairy breeds and those which are particularly satisfactory for dairy purposes are not very good for beef purposes. There seems to be a pretty well drawn line between those two purposes in breeding cattle. There is no doubt that the Shorthorn is eminently a beef producing breed. The Holstein'is classed among the dairy breeds, and I do not think any one would expect

that the Holstein would be suitable for beef purposes.


Charles Edwin Kaulbach: The experience in my county has been that the Holsteins are unserviceable. I would prefer using the word unprofitable, for either beef or milk. The Jersey and the Guernsey are, as a rule, better for milk, but for general purposes we find that the shorthorn Durham is to be preferred. As a profitable investment I would certainly recommend to dairy people-although perhaps it is presumption on my part-that the Shorthorn Durhams shohld be preferred above all others, if you can get the good milker, at least that is my experience.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: In England the great mass of dairy cattle are Shorthorn or Shorthorn grades, although in this country the Shorthorns have not been considered as dairy cattle. There are some Shorthorns which are very great milkers, and I have no doubt that it would be advantageous to the people of this country if we got on the experimental farm a herd of Shorthorns which would fairly be representative of beef animals and still good milkers. Whether we can get a general purpose animal suitable to every one is for the future to tell.


Mr. ROSS (Ontario).: The people in my country place their faith in Shorthorns, The gentleman who took the sweepstakes and two silver cups at Guelph, Mr. James Leask, who lives at Greenbank, thinks there is no animal like the Shorthorn. At the Guelph sale of thoroughbred stock this spring the Shorthorn females swept everything, they sold the highest of any animals that were offered for sale there. Our people believe that for general uses the Shorthorn is the best.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What have been the resuits of the feeding experiments at the farm?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: We have two herds, one of which is confined in a small space comparatively, and the other is allowed more freedom of exercise, both being fed the same. That is the experiment in the line of feeding. We have also the three milking herds, the records of which are being kept. We have some experiments with regard to the feeding of horses with the idea of discovering whether a mixture of grain feed for horses working on the farm might not be more economical than the almost wholly oats feed which Canadian horses usually get. We have a representative flock of Leicester sheep, and a representative flock of Shropshire, and we keep an account of what they eat and of what they yield. We have also a number of pigs with which we experiment from time to time. We carried on very extensive experiments with them in our investigation as to soft pork and the results of which Hon. Mr. FISHER
appeared in the bulletin which was issued by Professor Shutt and Mr. Grisdale.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What has been the result of the experiments in feeding cattle ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: The results have not been conclusive. The impression was that it was more profitable to feed animals running loose. But in some cases we found that the loose animals did better and in other cases it was the reverse.


Dilman Kinsey Erb: Is the minister in a position to tell us how many acres of the 200 which are set aside for ordinary farm purposes were last year devoted to pasture ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: The 200 acres are divided into 5 fields of about 40 acres each. We have always had too much pasture in the rotation for the year of pasture, and we have had to mow the fields ; the cattle not keeping it down. Last year part of it was mowed and part pasture the whole season, and the part mowed in the early part of the season was pastured afterwards. Roughly speaking, there are 40 acres in pasture each year, but that 40 acres each year has been partially mowed. I do not think I can give an absolute statement off-hand of the exact amount of pasture for the whole season.


Dilman Kinsey Erb: In adding up the number of acres mentioned for the different crops, I can only find 160 acres accounted for, and of that, 16 acres are said to be in pasture. I cannot gather from the report what the other 40 acres were devoted to.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: As a matter of fact, there are not quite 200 acres. We intended to have 200 acres, but in actual measurement there are only about 196. As I have explained, the hay and pasture overlapped, because a portion of the land which was left in pasture is also used for hay, there not being enough stock to keep it down. We had to take the stock away for a few days to cut the hay, and then turn them back. I could not give a full explanation of all the details without studying them more than I am able to do at the moment. -


Dilman Kinsey Erb: I have looked over the figures carefully, and I find that there were 35 acres in oats, 5 in barley, 5 in pease, 16 in mixed grain, 16 in pasture, part of which was mowed, 37 in hay, 4 in clover for ensilage, 30 in corn, 6 in mangels, 2 in turnips, 2 in carrots, 1 in sugar beets, 2 in rape, and half an acre in pumpkins. This makes 160 acres.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: 1 think the hon. gentleman has left out one field. The idea is to have a rotation of the five fields-one year in pasture, one in hay, one in hoed crop, and two in grain. In the management of this farm we have adopted what might be fairly called the ordinary

practice of good farming. We have a definite rotation, and the instructions are that the feed raised on the land shall be fed to the animals on the farm, and the manure put back on the land. We hope in that way to show what can ibe done in the growing of crops, and the maintenance of farm fertility. We have hardly got far enough yet to show the result. The work has been going ou for three years, and it is a five-year rotation. I think I may say, however, that in consequence of this rotation, and perhaps a certain treatment of the soil, the crops on the farm have been materially better during the last year than they have ever been before, hast summer when I was in England, I visited a good many of the leading farms of the country, and had an opportunity of seeing some of the best land in the best state of cultivation. I was much struck with what I saw ; but when I came back to Ottawa, I went to the Experimental Farm within a few days of my return, and drove all over it, and examined the crops ; and I am well within the mark in saying that at no place in England did I see crops which could at all compare with the crops on the Experimental Farm here last season.


Mr. CLANCY.: I would like to ask the Minister of Agriculture if he can state offhand the prices charged in feeding experiments, say for hay, oats, pease, ensilage and straw.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: They are all given in the report. The hay, straw and ensilage are all charged exactly the same in every case, so as to make a fair comparison. For the grain, the market prices as nearly as possible are charged, but always the same in all comparative experiments. On page 278 of the report, the prices given are as follows : Roots, $2 per ton ; ensilage, $2 ; clover hay, $6 ; straw, $3 ; corn, which I think means the whole corn, unground, $18 ; oats, pease or barley, $19 ; bran, $15 ; shorts, $10 ; oil meal, which means the oil cake meal, $32 ; gluten meal, $10 ; skim milk, 15 cents per hundred weight, $3 per ton ; calf meal, Blatchford's, $90.


James Clancy: I notice in a return which was brought down in answer to a motion made by my hon. friend from Lennox (Mr. Wilson), that a statement is given in regard to the farm of 200 acres which is being farmed apart. The fields appear to be given in each case, with the prices charged for the work done by way of ploughing, cultivating, harrowing, and so on, nothing of course being charged for rent ; and there seem to have been some very extraordinary crops. I see that straw is credited not at $3 a ton, but at $4. The hon. gentleman will find at page 5 of this return, and again at page 6, that a profit of $12.30 an acre is shown. The profit on the first field was only $3.25 an acre ; that was a field of 30 acres under pasture. On page 6, a field of 30 acres in corn shows a profit of $12.30 an acre. On page 7 there is an eight-acre field in corn and
roots, which shows a profit of $15.46 an acre. On page 9 it is stated that a field of 37 acres in hay gave a profit of $10.10 an acre and, including the second crop of clover, yielded a profit of $18.40 per acre. Those figures are rather startling to those of us who have never been able to realize any such profit. It is reported here that these 37 acres yielded 120 tons of hay or something over three and a quarter tons per acre.
I am not going to say that that is not possible, but I feel bound to say that it is entirely misleading to give out to the country that you have 37 acres which have produced so much hay.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I can only say that every load of that hay was weighed on the scales at the farm, and the figures are absolutely correct.


James Clancy: I venture to say that it was not weighed in the matured condition in which it would be found in a farmer's barn, but when the hay was somewhat wet. Of course, I have no personal knowledge, and perhaps have no right to venture an opinion as to the condition of the hay when put in, but no man could take thirty-seven acres under ordinary conditions and get a crop from it averaging three and a quarter tons per acre. It appears somewhat strange to find that the crop measured exactly 120 tons. Then, taking the second crop, we find that there were twenty-one tons from twenty acres. I can quite understand that that might be the case, although a ton to the acre of a second crop of clover is a pretty fair crop. I am now coming to the prices credited. The report says that id addition to the above, 22 milch cows were pastured on the remaining 17 acres during two months, and the value is estimated at $2 per cow per month. There would not be much profit in the milk business if you had to pay $2 a month for the pasture of the cows. Nobody would think of paying that if we were compelled to rent the land. One dollar is about the usual price. I simply point this out because I think our reports ought to be reasonable, and 95 per cent of our farmers would say that this shows a very extraordinary state of things, not to be found in any other 200 acre farm in the country. I want to point out also that the horses and machinery are charged at $2.50 per day. Take the case of the hay crop. You must invest in a mower, a hay rake, a tedder, you must have a wagon, horses and harness, in fact, the whole outfit, and vet the hon. gentleman has charged up for all that $2.50 per day. Every farmer must know that that is below what it would cost, including the feed and the keeping up and maintaining of that machinery, paying a fair rate of interest on the purchase money, feeding the horses and caring for them. Everybody knows that that is not a reasonable price. That includes wear and tear and interest on the whole outfit. It seems to me that such highly

coloured statements are not useful in the country.


Charles Edwin Kaulbach: I think I can relieve the mind of my hon. friend. Without any desire to be egotistical or boastful, let me tell him, when he speaks of three tons of hay per acre, on 37 acres, as something extraordinary, in my opinion it is a small average on a well cultivated field.


James Clancy: Where ?


Charles Edwin Kaulbach: In my own province. On a farm which I own, I average something like four tons to the acre, and I know of other fields that will give something like four and a half.


James Clancy: Timothy or clover ?


Charles Edwin Kaulbach: Both mixed. We find it more profitable to raise hay for stock instead of raising other crops. While we are on this subject, it may not be out of place for me to say something with regard to our system of farming in the county I represent. We have been using oxen for a long period and some use horses. But we find that the oxen are far more profitable, and for this reason: When you use a horse, you require a harness that will cost not less than $35 or $40, and which will not last a year in daily use without considerable repairing. But with oxen yoked at the head, two straps, at the cost of a dollar, which will last for years in daily use, is all that is required, to have the oxen do excellent work. Neck yoke is a thing of the past. We have made tests at exhibitions, and we find that an ox will haul 50 per cent more than a horse on a fair draft. I find it profitable to use oxen on a farm, and frequently have from four to seven yoke of oxen in daily use. We use them moderately and always keep them in perfect condition, so that if a butcher wants an ox, he goes to the man in charge and purchases at a fair rate. We find them profitable, but of course if you work your cattle from day to day and feed them scantily or perhaps overwork them, they will not be fit for butchers use. As a rule, an ox for work on the farm is far better than a horse, more steady, and will do the same amount of work and as I stated with less cost. We also find that oxen when yoked by the heads, will step as quickly as a pair of horses, particularly when they are managed by a skilful driver.


James Clancy: Does the hon. gentleman drive them occasionally ?


Charles Edwin Kaulbach: I do not, but I have seen them driven, and I have been told by others that oxen are preferable to horses-they do the same work with a larger return. If anything happens to an ox, you can stall-feed him and kill him. It his foot injured it can be readily cured.


An hon. MEMBER.: Or if he gets sick. Mr. KAULBACH. I am not speaking of cases of sickness, but of an injury. But


James Clancy: if a horse is injured, you must set him aside or shoot him, which is a dead loss. I make the suggestion that others should adopt the same system that we adopt. Wre call it the German method, and the yoke, we call the German yoke.


An hon. MEMBER.: What breed are the oxen ?


Charles Edwin Kaulbach: Shorthorns.


The MINISTER OE AGRICULTURE.: The figures given in the return and those given in the report of the Experimental Farm from year to year are absolutely accurate. The weights are given in detail. As to the hay, it was in>
good cured condition. As a matter of fact, it was fed to the animals all winter and what was left came out in good condition. It could not have been green or wet when it was weighed. I grant the crop was a large one judged by the average crop of the country. But I am glad to say, the crops at the experimental farms, as a rule, are larger than the ordinary crops of the couu-try, whatever the reason may be. I can assure my hon. friend that the crop that he referred to was the actual return of the land. Yields of grain and hay last year at the Central Experimental Farm were really phenomenal, and I do not expect that they can be repeated. I said a few minutes ago-perhaps my hon. friend did not hear me-that returning from England in June, the crops I found at the Experimental Farm, were out of sight, better than anything I had seen anywhere in England.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I suppose the hay was weighed in the barn ? #	.
The MINISTER OB' AGRICULTURE. Weighed in the wagon as it was driven into the barn,


Charles Edwin Kaulbach: As we have an Experimental Farm, and are supposed to experiment in everything that is likely to benefit the farmers, would it not be well that some member of the staff when visiting Nova Scotia, should come to my county and see how oxen are used for draught ? If one of these gentlemen would come to me, I could take him to my farm and there he would see oxen in the hands of an expert driver, yoked by the head-not by the neck, and doing excellent work. The driver carries his whip, not as an instrument of cruelty, but to have the cattle to understand that it is there for a purpose, and, if their memory is very short and they are not sharp and up to time, he does not fail to remind them of it by the use of this implement. Each ox has its own name, and the driver can stand on the team and talk to them, and twist them about in any way he pleases, and have them move as quickly as horses. They do the same work that horses do, with a better return. If the minister will send a member of the staff to pay us a visit, I shall be happy to show him around and give him all the

information he desires. And I would certainly recommend him to try the experiment of using oxen for work, yoked by the head, on the Experimental Farm.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I should be glad to.


An hon. MEMBER.: You are fifty years behind the times.


Charles Edwin Kaulbach: I hear an hon. member: say:	'You are fifty years behind the
times.' In this respect, I say certainly you are as you have been accustomed to the neck yoke, and know nothing of the excellent labour that can be performed by oxen yoked by the head.


Mr.   OLANGY@: I am afraid the Minister of Agriculture is somewhat remiss in his duties in not visiting the province of Nova Scotia. If he went there he would see how oxen could be used instead of horses, doing more work, doing it quite as quickly and more cheaply. He would see that the expense of horses and harness, and, to a great extent of modern farm implements is a waste of money. And, if I understand my hon. friend (Mr. Kaulbach) aright, the minister will find that the expense of feeding and housing as carried on in the Experimental Farm might be largely done away with.


Charles Edwin Kaulbach: I did not refer to feeding.


James Clancy: The hon. gentleman touched on a subject that involved feeding. He gave the House the useful information that, if you want a fat animal, all you had to do was to unhitch him in the field and he was all ready.


Charles Edwin Kaulbach: They are always in condition.


James Clancy: I hope my hon. friend the Minister of Agriculture will not neglect to go to Nova Scotia and that he will go with an open mind upon these questions. I want to ask the minister, in view of the prices given in this statement, are books of account kept at the Experimental Farm showing the prices of these crops and the cost of these experiments in feeding ? Take this two hundred acres of land-is an account kept of every dollar's worth on that land, and accounted for again in the course of the experiments in feeding and otherwise ? If that is done, and the figures show that the stock are sold at a profit that would be very useful information to the country.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: There is an accurate account kept of every hour's work of every man on the farm; of the use of machinery and the teams, and of the results of their work. And these items are charged against the crop or against the work which they are doing. In the same way there is an accurate account kept of the yield of every field, and it is credited to that field. If manure is put on, 91
the manure is charged against the field. The accounts are absolutely accurate and every statement given out is made up from the books.


James Clancy: I do not think the minister has quite got at what I want to know. In this return charges are made for the actual day's work. But there are times when work is not clone, as on every farm. Yet teams must be maintained, implements are lying idle and earning nothing. There is the original cost and the expense of maintenance besides. I wish to know whether a strict account is kept of every dollar's worth produced on the 200 acres, that is, hay, oats, roots, ensilage, in fact everything that is produced on: the 200 acres of land-if there is an accurate account kept of that, and then as to the value of the stock after it has been fed ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: There is an account kept of every crop, showing its cost. That crop is then brought into the barn and used for one purpose or another. When it is used to feed animals they are charged with it ; if it is used, as a good deal of our grain crops are used, for distribution throughout the country, the seed grain distribution is charged with it. Sometimes some of the orchard crops and small fruit crops. are sold and the money goes to the Receiver General, but it is credited in the farm books, although the farm vote is not helped by it. There is a certain amount of grain, roots and ensilage raised on that 200 acres, that is all accounted for, it is taken into the barn and used in the course of the year, and every bit of it is accounted for. We have to-day a large number of steers being fed for sale to butchers, and everything they eat is charged against them. The original cost when they are bought is charged against them, and the profit is shown at the end of the operation. In every case of the feeding of steers at the experimental farm a considerable profit has been made between the purchase of the animals and their sale, charging not only the food they have eaten but their original cost. Then again this spring it is likely we will have a considerable amount of ensilage left over ; the farm has been so productive that we have not got barn room enough to-day to hold a sufficient number of animals during the winter to eat up the crop of last year. We propose this summer to buy a number of steers and put them into a lot and feed them that ensilage left over, to see whether, in the summer time, we can feed ensilage to advantage in comparison to feeding the animals in a pasture. In "many sections of the country where there is a great deal of drought in* summer, the pastures get short, and people have been recommended to grow ensilage and take it out of the silo in the summer season and feed it to the animals. We have a lot of ensilage left over this spring, and we are going to make experiments on



that line this summer. In that way I trust the whole of last year's crop will be used up. That ensilage will be charged against the steers, they will be put in a small pasture and fed largely on ensilage, and the results of feeding them in that way will be shown in the price for which the steers are sold.


Mr. LENNOX.: Did I understand the minister to say that he is now experimenting to find whether it is profitable to feed cattle on ensilage during the summer months ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I said we proposed to try an experiment of that hind the coming summer.


Haughton Lennox: Does the minister think that feeding ensilage in summer is in an experimental stage at present ? I think that is well understood among farmers at the present time, and is constantly practiced by many.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I do not think it is much practiced in Canada. There are some people who have practiced it, but in no case to my knowledge where an accurate account is kept of all the details and results.


Haughton Lennox: I have heard farmers speak of it, and I think it is well known among farmers. Where grass is scarce during the summer months they have been in the habit, for years past, of feeding cattle on ensilage.


James Clancy: The hon. gentleman says that during the past year most exceptional crops were grown upon the experimental farm; that he has undertaken to account for every particle of stuff grown there in one way or another ; that the feeding experiments have been profitable upon the whoje. Now a farmer listening to that would conclude that the experimental farm made a considerable amount of money. In view of the hon. gentleman's statements I want to ask him what the profits were upon the experimental farm during the year. He will agree with me that the average quantity of new machinery should be charged up as against that year, because the life of machinery is not long, and it soon wears out. The hon. gentleman will take the stuff charged up to these fields, and the cost of raising it, with the cost of machinery bought during the year, the horses bought, in fact everything that was paid out for equijmient and maintenance. Now what has been the profits as between the two sides of the account for the past year ? It has been an extraordinary year, as the hon. gentleman states, and the farm should show a good margin of profit.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Books have been kept showing the profits of each field in connection with each crop, and we would have to add the various fields to see what the profits on the whole land are. The work of the farm is such that it
is necessarily mixed up with the work on the experimental part, and it would be impossible to lay aside certain implements and use them only for that one part. We therefore have to overcome that difficulty by charging to each field its share of the general wear and tear of the implements on the whole establishment. I think any business man would say that is the usual way of doing it in their business establishments. I grant if we were running a farm under ordinary circumstances, and not with a view to experiment, that could be accomplished by just taking the net profits at the end of the year, taking everything into consideration. But, in such an establishment as this it seems to me that the only way we can do is to say that there are 200 acres divided into so many fields of 37 acres, or 40 acres, 38 acres, or whatever it may be, that on that land so much crop was raised, that that crop cost so much, and in that case the land must be credited with it. When we come to work in the barn we have to feed that crop to the animals and we have to charge the value of the feed which is given to each of the individual animals. The aggregate of that is the result of using the whole of that crop. Then the product of the animal, either in milk or beef, or in other things, is credited to the feed and a balance again is struck to see whether there has been a profit or a loss. In the working of the experimental farm I understand that the work of the teams is charged at so much. If the hon. gentleman (Mr. Clancy) will notice, I think it is charged at $2.50 a day.


James Clancy: That is too low. The hon. gentleman knows very well from his own experience

The MINISTER OF AGRlCuLTLRE. I wrould like to finish what I am saying. In that is included the cost of the maintenance of these teams. Part of the feed which has been got off that land has to be fed to these teams, and they are credited with the work they do. We value a day's work at $2.50 and there are the man's wages besides. That is credited to a certain part of the whole crop which is raised on the farm. A certain portion of the feed is fed to the bulls which give no return beyond a little service fee, to the pigs, the sheep, and so on. It is not all fed to the animals which are under experiment. Part of it is fed to the animals which are not under experiment, but which we keep as an illustration of the different breeds of animals for the benefit of visitors to the farm.


James Clancy: The hon. gentleman will see that this report is entirely misleading in view of the statement which he has made himself. In the first place the fields are charged with the use of the horses and machinery by day's work. The hon. gentleman knows that this is not a fair propo-


Hon. Mr. FISHER.: tion. They must be charged, In a fair proportion, to all the fields during the year, because these are not hired teams that are brought in for a day's work. These horses are kept, some of them die, they grow old, the machinery wears out, and yet the hon. gentleman charges just for the day in which he employs them. No farmer would say that that would be a fair charge. The returns, so far as this is concerned, I venture to think, are entirely misleading. I am sure they do not appeal to any farmer in the House as being anything within near range of being accurate. I want to ask the hon. gentleman to follow this up. Taking the first field here, would he be able to show what has become of these 30 tons of straw charged up to four teams. Would he be able to say where it has gone, what account it is charged to, and if it is to be consumed, how much of it has been consumed, and how much of it is on hand ? Then, take again the next field, where 510 tons of ensilage is produced and see where that ensilage has been accounted for. 1 will take the next field, where there are 160 tons of ensilage. Where has that been accounted for ? If we do not attempt to account for feed of that kind under the same service, then I venture to say that this calculation is entirely without value. If such an account has been kept and worked out, then, I could understand the utility of it. But, the hon. Minister of Agriculture knows much better than I can tell him, that the charges that are made here are not such charges as would be made in actual farming. While the hon. gentleman says that it runs into the experimental portion as well as into the profitable portion, I admit that there would be some difficulty, but not an insuperable difficulty, in keeping them apart. I could connect the experimental portion with the feeding of stock. If the hon. gentleman's statements are to be accepted the experiments in the feeding of stock are profitable. These are just the expenditures incurred in the growing of grain on the 200 acres, or of crops generally and which, as well as the feeding of the stock, include labour and everything else involving a larger amount of charge against the farm. It seems to me that the hon. gentleman ought to undertake to give to this committee, at some future period, a statement of how the farm stands, and he should also recognize that the expense should be charged to the experimental portion of the work. I will venture to say that if the hon. gentleman reverses this method of keeping the accounts on the books, he will find the experiments making a profit and the farm going behind, because, if he charges the experiments with the day's work of the men, horses and machinery, he wil simply reverse the state of things. I desire to point that out to. show that these accounts, on the face of them, are misleading.
91J


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: 1 understood the hon. gentleman to say that a charge of $2.50 a day for a team was too high.


James Clancy: No, too low.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Well, I was going to say lo the hon. gentleman that while it may be too low, if you went out in the open market to hire teams, as a matter of fact that amount covers the cost of the team to the experimental farm, and so much more does it cover the cost that it makes up for the days when the teams are idle during the year. The actual charge which is made against the crop for team work if it were to be added up, would be considerably more than the cost to the farm of keeping all these teams there.


James Clancy: And the machinery ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: There is a charge for the machinery besides.


Haughton Lennox: Do you know that to be the case by actual experiment ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: We know that $2.50 a day is more than the actual cost of a team.


Haughton Lennox: Can you show that ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Yes, we know practically that it is so, and it is made higher for the express purpose of covering the time when the teams are standing in the barn. But, at the experimental farm, as a general rule, the teams are standing very little in the barn. Of course, in the summer time during wet days they must be in the barn, but during the winter time, when they would be standing in the barn on an ordinary farm, they are hauling manure for the experimental part of the farm and the horticultural work and that work has nothing to do with this 200-acre part of the farm. The men are utilized during bad weather from year's end to year's end in preparing grain for seed distribution, in preparing grain for exhibition work, and things of that kind, perhaps a little outside of the routine work of the farm, but still work that has to be done, and which is paid for out of the grain distribution apportionment of the farm and by the vote for exhibition purposes. If I secure agricultural specimens at the experimental farm, for sending to the exhibitions, every hours work of the men upon that, is paid out of the exhibition vote. That work is done at odd times when the men would possibly be idle otherwise. We have an immense amount of cleaning of grain for the seed distribution, which is done during the winter months. We have the threshing of all the experimental plots. That grain has to be kept carefully separate so that we may be able to find out the result. That takes hours, days, weeks, and

even months, for some men during the winter. All the men can be turned on to that work when there is bad weather and when they cannot work outdoors. There is no loss of time of the men on the farm and very little loss of time of the teams. Although this 200 acres is more than half the land cultivated on the farm, it is cultivated much more easily than the experimental plot work which takes a great deal more time, labour and expense, and the crop of which is not expected to pay ; the returns from it being its utility to the farmers of the country. X cannot give the statement which the hon. gentleman desires for last years work, but I will try to have it incorporated in the next annual report so that the gross sales and the actual cost of working that part of the farm may appear in the report.


John McGowan: How many horses have you on the experimental farm.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: We have six teams of horses. We have three horses to run the omnibus back and forwards to the city, an express wagon to carry mails and parcels; I think in all we have nineteen horses.


John McGowan: How many employees ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I suppose the hon. gentleman means the labour. I am informed that it runs in the neighbourhood of forty all told. That includes all the experimental work and things of that kind.
At six o'clock, the House took recess.
After Recess.
House resumed at eight o'clock.



Mr.  T. B.@: FLINT (Yarmouth) moved third reading of Bill (No. 64) to incorporate the Cosmos Cotton Company. He said : The hon. member for Lanark (Hon. Mr. Haggart) called attention to section 8 when this Bill was in committee, and he thought that the wording of that clause might be changed. I receive any suggestion of the hon. gentleman with a great deal of deference because of his experience and his candour, and the fairness with which he always treats matters of this kind. I have no doubt that his suggestion was intended for the benefit of the stockholders of this company. But, I have looked over the statutes for several years back and also the Bills of the present session, and I find that two out of five of them contain this clause word for word. I would ask my hon. friend not to press his objection. I would instance that the Ross Rifle Company Bill Hon. Mr. FISHER.
contains the same clause and the hon. member did not object to it. This company is chartered for the particular purpose of buying out another company which has a provincial charter, and it was thought that instead of asking for enlarged powers from the local legislature it would be better to ask for a new Bill here.


John Graham Haggart: The only objection I had was that it gave the directors of the company power, without the consent of the company itself.


Mr. FLINT.: All these clauses are framed in the same way.


John Graham Haggart: Very well.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read a third time, and passed.

[Stage Direction]
House in Committee on Bill (No. 68) respecting the Central Counties Railway Company.-Mr. Edwards.
On Section 4,
Mr. LEMIEUX.: In the absence of Mr. Edwards, I beg to move that the following clause be added to the last section of the Bill :
Section 5. Paragraph ' b ' as enacted by section 1 of chapter 60 of the statutes of 1899 is amended by striking out the words ' or Cassel-man ' in line 5 thereof, and inserting after the word ' Russell ' in line 6 thereof the following words : ' And then to the city of Ottawa in the county of Carleton.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: State the reason for the change V


Rodolphe Lemieux: I have had no explanation from the hon. member for Russell, but I understand that it refers to the direction which the line is going to follow. The promoters of the Bill do not want the line to go to Casselman, but they want it to go from Russell to Ottawa.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: The members of the committee who are present, will remember that the promoter of the Bill stated that the line as laid down in the Bill crossed the Canada Atlantic line either twice or three times, and by this change it would not have to cross the other road. It was stated by the gentleman who addressed the committee that he had a telegram from one of the railway companies, I forget whether it was the Canadian Pacific Railway or the Canada Atlantic, requesting that this change in the route be made. I do not think there is any objection to it. It is purely a local matter, and the change is in the interest of the public.


John Graham Haggart: I do not suppose there is any objection to the change, but it

would have been better to have followed the rules of the House, and to have given notice of the amendment. I will not object, however. This is an added clause which amends a previous section of the same Act. However, if the hon. gentleman is satisfied, let it pass, and it can be amended, if necessary, in the Senate.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.


CONSIDERSD IN COMMITTEE-THIRD READINGS.
[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 71) respecting the Dominion Cotton Mills Company, Limited.-Mr. Prefon-taine.
Bill (No. 43) respecting the Vancouver, Victoria and Eastern Railway and Navigation Company.-Mr.. Maxwell.
Bill (No. 63) to incorporate the Medicine Hat and Northern Alberta Railway Company.-Mr. Davis.
Bill (No. 74) respecting the Ottawa, Brock-ville and St. Lawrence Railway Company.- Mr. Logan.
Bill (No. 88) respecting the Medicine Hat Railway and Coal Company.-Mr. Scott.
Bill (No. 91) respecting the Timagami Railway Company.-Mr. McCarthy.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 89) to incorporate the Canada [DOT]Central Railway Company.-Mr. Scott.
Bill (No. 97) to incorporate the Dominion Railway and Power Company.-Mr. Cowan.
Bill (No. 100) to incorporate the Toronto and Niagara Power Company.-Mr. Campbell.
Bill (No. 107) respecting the Montreal,' Ottawa and Georgian Bay Canal Company.. -Mr. Belcourt.

[Stage Direction]
House in Committee of Supply.
Experimental farms, $80,000.
Mr. GANONG.: Before examining the estimates of the Minister of Agriculture, I had a great deal of sympathy for the farmers of this country. I still have that sympathy, for I believe them to be one of the most if not the most important class of workers we have. But I think it well for us to examine these estimates a little closely. At page 35, I find such items as these :	Aid to agricultural societies $7,000 ; experimental farms $ SO,000 ; printing and distribution of reports and bulletins of farms $4,000 ; fumigating stations $3,000 ; for renewing and improving Canadian exhibit at Imperial Institute, London, $3,000 ; to promote dairying interests, etc. $40,000. And on page 36 ; I find cattle quarantines and veterinary divisions $7,000. Then at page 74 there is an item to meet expenditure under the Adulteration of Pood and Fertilizers Act $25,000, of which $12,000 would probably apply to the Agricultural Department. I have given oply a few items, yet we find here a total of $434,000 which is, in effect a direct bonus to the farmers of this country. This is a class of protection which these gentlemen probably do not recognize that they receive. Nevertheless, it is a direct bonus and a protection to them. This does not cover all, for there are such items as cattle inspection, $2,800 ; protection for timber planting in the west,-designed to afford shelter and to help in retaining the moisture precipitated- $15,000, running the amount up to $450,000, without including the salary of an expensive minister. If you include this and other items it will easily amount to $500,000. We have heard it stated a good many times on the floor of this House that the farmers have no protection. As a manufacturer, i claim that the farmers have protection in these items amounting to $500,000. The claim is made that the farmers were called upon to pay duties on the importation last year of $1,927,000 worth of agricultural implements. But this bonus given outright to the farmers would more than pay the duty on all the agricultural implements imported last year. And this does not cover it all either. If we consider the Glasgow exhibition, the Paris exposition, the Pan-American and others, which cost this country a large amount of money, we find that that money is laid out for the benefit of the industrial portion of the community and largely for the benefit of the farming class.
There are some other advantages that the farmers get, and for which they do not perhaps pay their proportion of the cost.
I would not have the House imagine that I am objecting to these amounts, nor am I objecting to the item I propose to speak of just now, that is the postal service. The Postmaster General's Report will show that the postal service of the country districts is not self-sustaining, that the large centres of population undoubtedly have to pay for it. That report will show to any reasonable mind that the people in the country districts to-day are paying more for their postage than they ever paid in the history of the country. They are not paying it directly in the way of postage, but indirectly in other forms of taxation. Every one knows that the large corporations, the insurance companies and others, having a large amount of mailing matter, are receiving great advantage from the change in the postage. Personally, I have no doubt that the change benefits the firm with which I am connected at least $150 a year. But if we save $150, some one else has to pay it; it may not be paid in postage, but it is paid in taxation, and that is largely borne by the farmers of the country.
Then they have other advantages as well. We have expended millions of dollars on transportation, very largely in the interest

of the farmers. Our great railways have been built mostly for that purpose, and our canal systems have been built and will be enlarged in the future on the same basis. So that they have not only this direct bonus of $500,000, but they have these other advantages from which they are constantly receiving benefit. In this year's estimates the improvements to harbours will cover a very large amount, directly to the advantage of the farmers. Why are we spending money at Collingwood, at Owen Sound, at Depot Harbour, at Goderich ? Simply in order to afford better facilities for the transportation of the products of the farm. We are spending in dredging harbours, also in the interest of better transportation, a sum of oyer $600,000. Then in steamship subventions the farmers have an advantage. So that in addition to the protection the farmers have in the tariff on wheat, flour and such products, they have all these other advantages as well. There is also another scheme that may come to the front. Why is the building of the Georgian Bay canal mooted at all ? That is not for the benefit of the manufacturers, by whom the Minister of Trade and Commerce used to say that the country was being bled white, but in the interest of the farming community of the west; and if it is ever built it will be built in their interest alone. The criticisms from this side of the House are in a fair spirit, they are not against these grants themselves, but in tiie mode of their expenditure. We desire that the farmers of this country may get all the advantage xjossible for the amount of money that is being expended. That is the object of all the criticisms made in this House by the opposition. We do not object so much to the expenditure, but we believe that the farmers and others are not getting a fair equivalent for their money. We are told that the farmers have no protection, but that the manufacturers are getting all the advantages. The Minister of Trade and Commerce has in years past rather abused the guild to which I have the honour to belong. I say we have as honourable men in it as the hon. gentleman who occupies the position of Minister of Trade and Commerce. We have not in it men who have tied up water powers and are refusing to sell them when they are needed for the development of the country. We have not men who have decried cabinet positions and afterwards accepted $7,000 a year of the people's money to fill those positions.
I resent the statement the hon. member has made in so far as the manufacturers of this country are concerned. I think the grants that are before us to-day are all right in themselves, but I want an assurance from the minister that they will be expended in the best possible manner in the interest of the farmers.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Would the minister tell us what experiments are going on now at the Central Experimental Farm ?


Gilbert White Ganong: 


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: We have about 1,000 different plots of various sizes on the experimental farm. These are all handled separately, and the crops grown on them are carefully weighed and recorded, and the results of the comparisons are worked out in the office, and these are published in the reports of the experimental farms.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I noticed some time ago there was a change made in the silos, which were originally square, and they are now round. What has been the result of the
change ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I think I am safe in saying that the results show that the round silos is preferable. There is less waste in the round silo. Some ensilage may spoil in the corners of a square silo.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What is your experience in regard to the diameter of the silo that is most suitable for ordinary occasions-say where there are 40 or 50 head of cattle to be fed.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: It is desirable to have the silo of sufficient size to enable the feeder to take three or four inches of the surface off <h-ery two days, because, when the surface is exposed to the air, it will .begin to spoil.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The ensilage would not be injured in the course of a day or two in the winter ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Two days are quite safe, but many days would not be. The state of the weather may influence the length of time during which it would be safe to allow ensilage to be exposed to the air.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: If you take three or four inches off every two or three days it would not take long to exhaust the silo at that rate of going.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: There will be about 18 feet in depth of ensilage.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What diameter ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: The diameter is about 14 or 15 feet.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What has been your experience in regard to the preservation of wood in the silo ? Is there any difference between a round and a square silo ? What, kind of wood did you use ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: We used ordinary pine. Its durability depends a good deal upon the way it is treated. The wooden ones which were rotted when these new ones were put in had been there about ten years. They were treated with a preparation of linseed oil and resin on the inside to fill the pores of the

wood and prevent it from absorbing moisture from the ensilage and rotting it. The time during which that silo lasted, however, was not as great as the time during which some -other silos have lasted. I have a silo at home that lasted for 14 years before I had to renew it, but the ones on the farm gave out in -ten years. The new ones have not shown any signs of decay. They have only been in existence about two years. We cannot say whether they will last longer than the old ones.


Mr. ROBINSON (Elgin).: If the hon. member for East Grey (Mr. Sproule) had attended our Farmers' Institute and grange meetings he would have learned all these things years ago. It seems to me that all day we have been doing farmers' institute and grange work and that every farmer in this House ought to know all about these matters without asking -the questions that have been asked of the hon. minister. I do not object to it, because the country will be educated, perhaps, and especially those members of the farming community who do not attend these meetings will get information from the lion. Minister of Agriculture to-night that they have not had an opportunity of getting before. But, what astonishes me is, to hear members of this House getting up and deploring the work that the hon. minister is trying to do for the farmers. They appear to complain because he is protecting the farmers, because he is assisting them in the matter of transportation and experimental farms and trying to improve in other ways the work of the farmer. I think if the lion. Minister of Agriculture devotes his time to that work he will be doing a grand thing for this country and when we speak about that as being protection to the farmers I would say that it is an excellent thing that he is protecting the farmers in that way. The farmer has to pay for his clothing a protection to the manufacturer of about 30 per cent. That is $30 on the hundred added to the expense of maintaining his family, which goes to the manufacturer of clothing. If he consumes confectionery he has to pay 25 cents on the dollar and if he consumes biscuits he has to pay 27 cents on the dollar. Every manufacturer in this country is protected more or less and yet an lion, gentleman (Mr. Ganong) gets up and complains because the farmer is assisted in developing his business.


Gilbert White Ganong: I made no complaint if the - hon. gentleman (Mr. Robinson) is referring to me. On the other hand I rather complimented the minister.


Jabel Robinson: Perhaps you did, but I thought you were complaining because we were getting protection in this form. Go on and protect the farmers, give them cold storage, improve their transportation facilities, teach them how to raise more and of a better quality and you will
do something for the benefit of the country. But, the discussion of all these little items in this House, thus wasting the time of 213 men who have to sit and listen to it, is, it seems to me, entirely out of place. I have no objection to this item passing.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The committee must feel grateful to the hon. gentleman (Mr. Robinson, Elgin) for the lecture which he has read to us on the propriety of our proceedings here telling us what we should do and what we should not do. We were innocent enough to believe that when a proposal for the expenditure of public money is before the House it is our duty to ascertain in what way the money is being silent and to bring out such information as will enable us to determine whether it is a wise expenditure or not. It is not a discussion but rather more in the nature of asking questions, which it is legitimate and proper for us to do. It is not a question of whether the party who is asking the questions knows anything about the business or not. There are experiments being carried on at the farm. It is our duty to ascertain as far as possible, whether they are being conducted on proper lines and what the results of these experiments have beeu. If they have not been conducted on proper lines it is our place to offer such suggestions as in our judgment might be of assistance to -those engaged in them. It is for the purpose of bringing out this information that these questions are being asked. In connection with these experiments I want to say a few words on another line. Experiments have been carried on for some time in regard to the feeding of pork to determinate what class of foods produce soft pork. I listened with a great deal of interest to the statement of Mr. Shutt of the experimental farm when he was before the Committee on Agriculture to give information upon that question. My understanding, before the experiment was commenced was, that it was to be carried on for the purpose of determining what classes of food were the most suitable for producing a good quality of pork, but it seems to me that the whole sheet was made out with the aim of determining whether corn produces soft pork or not and it had very little relevancy to the question of determining the effect of other kinds of food. Those who are in the habit of raising pork know that there are certain kinds of food which will produce soft pork and that some food prepared in different ways produces different qualities of pork. I think that experiment fell far short of what it should have been to bring ..out information that should have been available to the farmers of the country. In'all the combinations of food that were made in the course of the experiment corn was one-half of each ration. If half was made up of different things like mangolds, turnips, oats, and barley ; while it might be proper to use corn ns one of the rations it was at least

equally valuable to determine what were the cheapest possible kinds of feed we could use to produce good pork. In my section of the country the principle feed used is mangolds, beets or turnips, with pease, oats and barley ground up and put over it. There is a great deal of difference in the quality of pork produced from feeding raw turnips and from feeding boiled turnips. There has been no sufficient inquiry into the results obtained from such feed as that.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: We have done just the very thing which the hon. gentleman points out. The bulletin shows that some of the rations were of boiled roots and some of raw roots. Corn did not enter at all into a number of the rations.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: In my judgment one of the most desirable things to know is : What cheap food will best produce a good quality of pork. If you can produce as good a quality of pork from sugar beets and a small quantity of grain, as you can from an entire ration of grain, then you will have a larger profit because roots are cheaper than grain. We had practically no information along that line in the committee. If you can convince a farmer that he can use feed which costs him only one cent a pound or less, and four pounds of which will make a pound of pork which he can sell for 6 cents, you will show him how to make a profit. If grain is high in price it is not profitable to feed it to hogs. In this respect the experiments were deficient. Now, we have had no information given us as to the yield on that part of the farm which was cultivated for the purpose of showing how much profit there was in agriculture, and we were not told how much manure was put on these fields year after year.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: The manure is included in the account of every field.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: For one year or for many years ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: The manure is only put on in rotation once in five years, and what is done is to charge one-fifth of the manure to each crop.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: It is claimed that the farm being so close to Ottawa there could be a large quantity of manure purchased.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: There is no purchased manure put on that portion of the farm. The manure put on that land was the produce of the feed raised on the land itself. The purchased manure was put on another part of the farm.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What quantity of manure was put on per acre ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Twenty tons.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: 


Mr. SHERRITT.: How do you charge your hay and oats ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: The hay is charged at $6 a ton and the oats at $19 a ton. The grain we raise for feeding is charged in round figures at a cent a pound.


John Sherritt: How do you count your hay when you grow 3i tons to the acre ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: That is charged the same.


John Sherritt: Surely the hon. gentleman does not consider that is a fair report to send out to the country. Every farmer in this House knows that there is about 25 per cent difference in the weight of hay as taken off the field and after it is thoroughly dry.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: There is a shrinkage, no doubt.


John Sherritt: I am certainly pleased with the announcement which the minister has made, that he intends to bring down a statement next year showing exactly what the produce of the farm has been, as one cannot tell anything about it in the present condition of affairs.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: We have all the data, but it has never been worked out in the way the hon. gentleman desires, but I shall be very glad to have that done.


Charles Edwin Kaulbach: I hope the Minister of Agriculture will have no objection to my giving the House the result of my experience in the culture of the soil. For example, I had unwillingly to take a farm which came into my hands that had been exhausted of all fertility. My desire was to have it restored, and to accomplish that end, I went to the experimental farm to inquire what would be the best method to bring the soil back to its virgin condition. I was advised to take a sub-soil plough very early in the spring and turn up the bottom earth. The inquiry was made of me, what did the soil consist of ? I said that it was a red clay covered with a black light loam, which, from having been cropped frequently, was exhausted of all its properties, and grew very little more than carraway, witch grass and weeds. I followed the advice given to me by the experimental farm people and, after having turned up the sub-soil as advised with a good sub-soil plough, I was advised to sow it with clover seed thick, enough to produce a good thick crop. After the clover had grown about six inches, I had it turned under by shallow ploughing ; and then sowed the land with oats, timothy and clover, and had an excellent crop that season, coming in about the month of August, which was cut for food, stored away in the barn, and fed to the stock ; and the next year I had the manure from that stock used as a top dressing. I treated

five acres the first year in this way and five acres the next year; and, after applying that method for five or six years, I had an immense yield of good, wholesome food. That farm only kept four head of cattle at first, but now it has thirty-six head on about sixty acres of land, half of which is In pasture. Therefore, I say that farming, if conducted in a proper manner, will give a handsome living to the farmer. A farmer,
I contend, is a king among peasants. Now, as tlie hon. member for East Grey (Mr. Sproule) has referred to hog raising, I may ' say that I made inquiry on that subject at the experimental farm, and was advised to feed hogs on clover and sugar beets. I received that same advice from other parties, and was also advised to use the sugar beet for horned cattle. The clover and the sugar beet, put into a vat and boiled up together, along with some middlings, pease, beans or any thing of that kind, gave an excellent food for hogs ; and as a result I had an excellent herd of hogs raised principally on this description of food. I imported eleven, out of which I had a product of 101, and from that product I netted in one year, from November to November, a clear profit of $1,000.


Mr. HEYD.: On how many acres altogether.


Charles Edwin Kaulbach: I kept the hogs in pens. I did not use any acres at all.


Charles Bernhard Heyd: You said you had sixty acres of ground.


Charles Edwin Kaulbach: I dropped that subject. It was on another farm that I raised the hogs. X sold the whole of the young stock, weighing about 250 pounds a piece. I sold them without any difficulty right at my door in the town where I live, for seven and eight cents per pound dressed) weight, and 1 could not give them to the butchers as fast as they were applying for them. The farm had all the trimmings. I employed a party at $14 a month to do nothing but look after the hogs. I gave him his house rent free, all the roots he required for his family, ail his firewood and other small perquisites, and I found that it was the most profitable investment I had on the farm. I had an orchard on the farm, and when there was a little breeze some of the apples fell which used to be picked up by hand ; now the hogs are turned in and they pick up the apples without any trouble, and which is good food for them. After the hogs picked up>
the apples they are sent back to the pen.
This year I only have half the number, because my men had to give their attention to other work, but I advise every farmer to grow pork and use the methods I employ, namely, feed with young clover and the sugar beet. The sugar beet will be far better employed in Canada in the feeding of stock than in the production of sugar. We have had experience in the manufacture
of sugar from the beet, which has shown to be an utter failure, and with all due deference to my hon. friend from Grey (Mr. Sproule), I believe that if we would give our attention to the growth of the sugar beet and use it in the way I mention, we would have much better returns than we could possibly have by converting it into sugar. Might I ask the hon. minister if any experiments have been made with regard to the destruction of the cattle fly. Our cattle in the maritime provinces are greatly tormented by that pest, and we have used in a rude way every method we could devise to get rid of it. We have applied the fish oil and paraffine-a very slight mixture of paraffine with the fish oil-every day to the cattle, and some of our people have tied rugs about the horns to protect them. That latter precaution, however, is an inconvenience to the cattle, as it makes them too warm in the summer season. If the hon. gentleman knows of any method for getting rid of this pest, I would be very glad to have the information.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: The entomologist has dealt with that subject exhaustively in a special bulletin issued three years ago or more. Among the remedies he recommends is fish oil, but that is not quite so easily obtained here as as where my hon. friend lives. Kerosene emulsion he also recommends. But the horn fly is still troubling cattle a good deal, all through the country. I have no doubt, however, that those who take precautions to keep it away from the cattle reap an abundant return for their trouble.


Charles Edwin Kaulbach: Our experience shows that the cattle fly and the horn fly are separate and distinct. The one is larger than the other. The horn fly is very small and gathers round the lower part of the horn, whereas the cattle fly is larger and places his head downwards, penetrating the skin and causing great torture to the animal.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Experiments were made a few years ago to ascertain how many head of cattle could be kept per acre the year round. Has aything been done in that line since ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Nothing definite.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What was the result of the experiment ? .


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: It showed about an average of 22 head of cattle to 40 acres of land. That experiment was carried on four years.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What experiments are going on with regard to hybridization ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Prof. Saunders has been carrying on steadily experiments in the hybridization of grains and fruits. He is experimenting on the

cross fertilizing of different varieties of grain, to see whether new varieties might be found, and when found he tests them and compares them with the older varieties. His work in connection with fruits is chiefly in experiments to get an apple which will stand the North-west climate. By hybridizing the more tender and larger varieties on the wild Siberian crab, which is perfectly hardy but too small to be of much use, we find that we are getting varieties which we may hope to grow with success in the Northwest. We find to-day some trees there, the results of such cross fertilizing, which are producing fruit, and in course of time we hope to produce a fruit which will flourish in the North-west and be quite good enough for culinary and household purposes. The progress so far as been very encouraging.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Do you propose adding any new buildings this year ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I propose to add a horse stable to the Brandon farm.


Mr. BELL.: Perhaps I might now introduce a matter which I mentioned to the hon. minister in connection with fumigation.
The MINISTER OF AGRICLi-fURE. I have not got the papers here in connection with that and would ask the hon. gentleman to bring it up on another occasion.
Salaries and contingencies of organized districts and public health in other districts, $110,-
000.


Charles Edwin Kaulbach: I desire, if this is the proper time, to call attention to a case of quarantine, though the nature of it may possibly make it rather a matter for the consideration of customs and come within its province. There was a vessel belonging to Lunenburg that went to Boston and was discharging and taking in cargo within a short distance of the contagious hospital there. The crew, it is reported, were not on shore, but the steward, through flies in the galley, became infected with small-pox. The vessel left on her voyage to Georgetown, Prince Edward Island. Arriving there the captain reported the steward sick, feeling that the disease was of a serious character. The doctor went on board and pronounced it small-pox, and advised the captain that he and the crew should remain isolated, and not leave the ship. After a day or two's delay, the doctor informed the captain that he with his ship ' Monitor ' was to proceed to Pictou. The vessel proceeded to Pictou under difficulty, going out in a storm. Reaching the port of Pictou. the captain reported himself through the captain of another vessel. and remained in quarantine waters. After two or three days delay at Pictou, this poor man suffering from this terrible disease, without the necessary treatment, the vessel was ordered to Charlottetown across the bay. What I contend is that this poor man should have had medical treat-Hon. Mr. FISHER.
ment during all this time. When the vessel reached Charlottetown, it was after a lapse of six or seven days from the time it had arrived at Georgetown. The sick man was landed, but had been on shore hardly any time when he died. The captain reported to me that it was through the want of proper attention shown by the customs or quarantine official at Georgetown, that the poor man met his death, and the itnneeessary detention of the ship in Georgetown and Pictou. It appears that, under the Act, the customs official becomes the quarantine agent when a vessel with sickness aboard is reported. The vessel was kept in quarantine at a late season of the year, after she should have been out of the gulf, the gulf being prohibited waters. She was paying a percentage to go into the gulf, intending to have carried a chartered cargo from Georgetown, and if that vessel had been looked after quickly, she would have been out of the gulf and out of quarantine in time to have completed her charter. But, leaving the port in which the ship was quarantined, then being released, and going into the gulf in a storm and trying to make Pictou harbour in a snow storm for shelter in the night, she met with shipwreck. The vessel, which was a new one, just launched the year previous and specially built of special material for a certain purpose, was lost to the owners, and the crew barely saved their lives. The vessel was -sold as a derelict and was bought in by other parties. I would ask the minister to look into this matter carefully and give such satisfaction as is within his power. I will write him a carefully drawn letter giving the facts, to which I will ask his careful attention that he may give me Information as to the position in which this poor unfortunate master and owners are to be placed. The vessel was worth $7,000. The captain is deprived of his season's work, which was his living. All he asks now is not the value of the ship, but, in consequenece of the want of proper attention on the part of the custom officials at the quarantine station at Georgetown, that the captain and owners should be compensated to the extent of the charter which would be about $600 or $700-I can give the exact amount by referring to a letter written to me by the master. '


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Certainly the case comes under this vote.
I know the case quite well. The vessel arrived at Georgetown. I do not remember where she came from, but it was at Georgetown she first came into contact with Canadian officials. But my department did not hear anything of her until she arrived at Pictou. I have not the .official statement, but I understand that the provincial health authorities at Georgetown ordered the vessel away. Georgetown is not an organized quarantine port. Nor is Pictou, though it used to be three or four years ago. I sup-

pose the health authorities at Georgetown ordered her to Pictou on the supposition that it was still an organized quarantine port. Charlottetown is an organized quarantine port and was the proper place for her to go to with a quarantinable disease aboard. The moment we heard of her being in Pictou, she was ordered to proceed to Charlottetown, which would take but a few hours. The case was attended to by the quarantine officer there in due course. The quarantine law had to be carried out, and neither the government nor the department can be held responsible for damages accruing in carrying out the law, which is for the protection of the whole people against disease coming from abroad. The course of the department in taking the vessel from Pictou, a nonorganized port, to Charlottetown, an organized port, was quite in accord with the necessities of the case and with the law. It was extremely unfortunate, no doubt, that the man died in the quarantine at Charlottetown. Whether that death was in any way due to the voyage from Georgetown via Pictou to Charlottetown, we have no means of knowing. The man had every care and attention in the quarantine hospital at Charlottetown, but unfortunately he died a few days afterwards. The vessel had to be quarantined and disinfected, and the people who were on board the vessel and had been exposed to contagion, had to be kept in quarantine until the period of the incubation of the disease was over.


Charles Edwin Kaulbach: I understand how requisite it is that the quarantine regulations should be carried out very strictly. But what I complain of is that this man at Georgetown did not communicate at once to Pictou by wire and inform the officer of this vessel being there. Then he would have been advised that she could not be received at Pictou, but must go to Charlottetown. I think it is clear that this man neglected his duty. I may be wrong, but I understand that the customs official in Georgetown becomes the quarantine officer for the time being in cases such as that. He leaves off his official position as customs official, and becomes quarantine official. But I contend that the quarantine official should have communicated at once with Pictou by wire, because the life of that man depended upon all despatch being used and the shortest time employed to get him off the Ship and under medical treatment. And finding that Pictou could not receive him, the vessel could then have gone direct to Charlottetown ; she would have been running on one side of the triangle, whereas she had to make three sides by sailing first to Pictou and then to Charlottetown.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: There are no records in the department showing what the hon. gentleman says about the customs collector at Georgetown. The first intimation we had of the vessel was when she arrived at Pictou. I will be
glad if the hon. gentleman will give me the facts, and I will look into them.


Charles Edwin Kaulbach: I will send the hon. gentleman the full particulars by letter tomorrow.


Mr. HACKETT.: This poor sick mariner was a Canadian who had paid his sick mariner's dues. It is true that at Georgetown there is no quarantine hospital, but when a ship arrives the customs officer sees-that a doctor is sent on board. The doctor was acting under the authority of the Dominion government, and the customs officer at that port was also an official of the Dominion government. There was a case of small-pox, and they had no means of taking charge of this sick seaman at that time, and I do not know for what reason they did not communicate directly with the De-partmet of Public Health at Ottawa. Instead of doing so they ordered this vessel away from Georgetown to Pictou. I cannot understand why such a proceeding was allowed to take place. This vessel having a case of small-pox on board, was ordered from Georgetown to the port of Pictou in Nova Scotia, simply because the vessel hailed from a port of Nova Scotia. Now, we are all Canadians, and there is no reason why this poor sick seaman should have been dragged about from one port to another. Arriving at Pictou, the vessel was ordered back again to Charlottetown, where there was a quarantine hospital. I say it was a case of gross inhumanity, and was so^ regarded by the people of the maritime provinces, that this poor man should have been carried around in this vessel for seven or eight days without medical treatment, when he was paying into the government his sick, mariner's fees. Certainly there was neglect somewhere. The poor man went into the quarantine hospital at Charlottetown and died there, in fact, he was so near dead, when he landed that he only survived a few hours. You will understand that the merchants of Prince Edward Island chai'ter these vessels from the province of Nova Scotia to carry away produce in the fall of the year, and it is important that these vessels should come freely into our ports for the purpose of carrying away cargoes. Another case of small-pox occurred, and this-time, notwithstanding the experience of the former case, the vessel was boarded by the customs officer, a doctor diagnosed that sick seaman's case, and then he was taken in a vehicle and driven from Georgetown to Charlottetown, a distance of thirty miles, through the country, exposing to contagion the people all along the route. No attempt whatever was made to warn the people of their danger. I have no doubt the minister is conscientious in this matter, but I want to impress upon him the need of taking precautions in cases of this kind where the public health of so many people is exposed to danger. There should be some provision made at a port like Georgetown, some kind

of a temporary hospital outside the limits of the town, where cases of this kind can be attended to by doctors and nurses.


John William Bell: I think there is a hospital at Pictou for contagious diseases of seamen, a hospital building.	.
The MINISTER OB'1 AGRICULTURE. At one time Pictou was what was called an organized port, having a quarantine hospital and grounds. We found that the arrivals at that port were so few in number that there was no Necessity to maintain it. I think Port Hawkesbury was another place in the same position, and was abandoned as an organized port. Having the property there we still keep charge of it, and if occasion arises at any time, it will be possible to use it.


John William Bell: I observe that there is a charge in the Auditor General's Report for a caretaker for that building and it would seem, that, having that building available, this person should have been received into the hospital, instead of having him sent back to Charlottetown. The port has a medical officer and it also has a hospital.


The MINISTER OP AGRICULTURE.: We have no medical officer under salary.


John William Bell: But still, you had the hospital and this caretaker, and it would seem much more in the interest of the sick man if he had been introduced into that hospital which was at hand at the moment. Another point; apparently in the ports where you have no organized system, you rely on the customs officer ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: We ask the customs officer' to call in a medical man in case of need.


John William Bell: There should be such information in the possession of these customs officers as would prevent them from sending a person to a wrong point which possibly may arise from the conflict of authority, as the customs officer is in one department and the quarantine is under the charge of the hon. minister's department. It would be an improvement if instructions were given to customs-house officers which would prevent a recurrence of this incident.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Instructions are sent to them regularly and if a customs officer at Georgetown did send this man to Pictou I do not know why he did so.


Charles Edwin Kaulbach: The medical officer in Pictou informed the captain that the man would be taken on shore there and receive treatment. After he was there three days, this was recalled, and the captain got orders to proceed to Charlottetown, which involved delay again. I quite agree with the hon. member for Pictou (Mr. Bell) that, having a building there, the man should have been received and placed under the care of a medical man. If so, and if he had received proper treatment, it would probably have Mr. HACKETT.
saved his life. The difficulty arose from the customs officer or the quarantine officer at Georgetown not having despatched that vessel immediately to Charlottetown, first having communicated the fact to Charlottetown as quickly as possible. If this had been done there would only have been a day's delay between the time of the vessel leaving Georgetown and her arrival in Charlottetown.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: This item was held over on a previous occasion for the purpose of allowing the minister an opportunity of furnishing certain information to the committee regarding the points at which quarantine officers were employed owing to the prevalence of small-pox. Has he that information ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Yes. I have already given the list of those who are still employed. I was asked to supply a list of those who had been employed and whose services had been dispensed with. I have the list now.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Would the hon. minister give us the names of the parties who are employed now, what kind of work they arc doing, and at What point they are stationed?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: All over the Dominion.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I am specially interested in Ontario.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: In Ontario there is Dr. Gibson at Sault Ste. Marie, whose services were dispensed with on 31st October, 1900. He was reappointed on the 22nd of November, 1900. and is employed still ; Dr. Sheppard, whose services were dispensed with on November 30, 1901 ; at Thessalon, Dr. Baxter, whose services were dispensed with on November 15, 1901 ; Port Arthur, Dr. G. W. Brown, whose services were dispensed with on 30th: November, 1901 ; at Collingwood, Dr. Ayles-worth, whose services were dispensed with on 31st November, 1901 ; Fort William, Dr. Hamilton, whose services were dispensed with on 30th November, 1901 ; Bruce Mines, Dr. Carter, whose services were dispensed with on 30th November, 1901 ; Mine Centre, Dr. D. McKenzie, who is still on ; Rondeau, Dr. McCully, whose services were dispensed with on the 15th November, 1901 ; Owen Sound, Dr. McCulloch, whose services were dispensed with on November 30, 1901 ; Chippewa, Dr. Gray, whose services were dispensed with October 22, 1901 ; Beaver Mills, Dr. McCrimmon, who is still at work ; Cornwall, Dr. Wheeler, whose services were dispensed with on February 28, 1902. These are all in Ontario.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Have you none at Sarnia or Detroit or places like that ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: The intention is to guard the frontier where-ever there appears to be danger of the

disease coming oyer. The parts of the United States opposite these ports that I have referred to and from which vessels are coming to these ports are parts of the United States where, apparently the disease is not well under control. In Detroit and that neighbourhood the reports from the United States authorities and the information of the provincial authorities of Ontario show that the disease is well under control and that there is not any likelihood of persons carrying the disease in crossing the frontier. The same is true of Buffalo on the Niagara frontier and that is why we have not undertaken to place observing physicians at these places. We have worked as far as possible in conjunction with the provincial health authorities and wherever they have considered that there was danger and when they have notified us we have acted, but, where they seemed to consider there was no danger we have believed them to be acquainted with the conditions and we have thought it was not necessary to make an appointment.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I have seen it reported at different times that the disease was prevalent in Michigan and quite close to Detroit. It has been imported into our section of the country on the train. There was one case at least. Is there no provision for examining passengers on trains coming across the line so as to prevent the importation of disease ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: That work is only done where there is danger which the director general of public health ascertains from information supplied him. The frontier at Sarnia and Niagara did not seem to be dangerous and we have not done work there. But in other parts, on the representations of the provincial authorities we have taken precautions.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I understand that people are prevented from going from Canada to the United States unless they are vaccinated.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: There may be parts of Michigan where this is done, -but it is not general.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I heard this was done at Buffalo.


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


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The minister read a list of men who had their services dispensed with last fall. Does he intend to re-employ these men when navigation opens?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Wherever there seems to be any danger some one will be appointed.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What rule guides the minister as to where there is danger and where there is not ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: We have representations from the provincial authorities on that matter.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: You mean the provincial Board of Health.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: We have always taken representations from the provincial Board of Health and in some cases the town authorities have asked for protection. The director general of public health decides if these representations are well founded or not.


John McGowan: I understood the minister to tell us that he had only jurisdiction over the frontier and that the provincial authorities look after the public health elsewhere ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Yes.


John McGowan: I see by the report that Dr. James Paterson, of Winnipeg, was sent by this government to the North-west territories.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: The territories have no provincial organization and my department has been charged by the government with looking after the health work there. Dr. Paterson has been sent to superintend that work. We have done the same thing in the Yukon.


John William Bell: I understand that we have the right reserved to us to discuss other matters affecting this department. I want to speak briefly about the Year-book.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: That item was passed last night on the understanding that if any gentleman wished to speak on it again he could do so. If the hon. gentleman (Mr. Bell) thinks it desirable he can do so now.


John William Bell: Looking at the papers this morning I find that the minister stated last night that some errors had crept into the. Year-book, and that he would see that it (lid not occur again. There has been a very serious misapprehension in regard to this matter. So far as I have been able to look into it I am satisfied that the Yearbook has been absolutely correct within the sense it professes to be correct. The criticism that was addressed against the Year-book was based upon the figures giving the estimated population of Canada, and these figures were not quoted correctly from the Year-book by the Minister of Trade and Commerce. He did not quote them with absolute accuracy. I am referring now to the unrevised version of ' Hansard.' For instance, the figures for 1897 were quoted by the Minister of Trade and Commerce, who substituted 4,875,005 for the correct_ figures in the Year-book which are 4,875.035. It is not an important error, but it shows that there was not absolute accuracy in quoting the figures. The first occasion on which

that hon. gentleman referred to the figures, he gave the estimate as not 4,875,035, but 4,856,236, and so on throughout. Whether there was carelessness in transcribing or not I cannot say, but the figures were not presented to the House absolutely as they are in the Year-book.


The MINISTER OP AGRICULTURE.: From what Year-book is the hon. gentleman [DOT]quoting now ?


John William Bell: The Year-book for 1889, which the Minister of Trade and Commerce informed the House later he was using. In my first criticism I did not know what volume he used, but I took 1900. I am referring now to the Year-book of 1889. The minister on that occasion, referring to the year book of 1889, made this very extraordinary statement. He said: ' They suppressed 1890 and 1891, and I will supply the figures.' Now, how could any man rationally say that the Year-book of 1889 suppressed the figures of the two following years ? Evidently there was some great confusion of ideas on the part of the gentleman who made the charge. He goes on to say that he will supplement these figures, and he does it, not by quoting from the volume of 1890, where he would have found the estimates for that year ; but supplying an estimate on his own authority while giving the Year-book as his authority. He gave 5,210,000 for 1890, whereas the Year-book gives 5,189,099, and for 1891 he supplied the estimate of 5,345,000, where the Year-book contains the actual figures^ of the census of that year, namely, 4,843,256. If the hon. gentleman, in giving this calculation to the House, had followed the same system as was followed by the Year-book, instead of adding 134,000-


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: If I might suggest to the hon. gentleman, he is going into a number of figures, in which I confess I am not able to follow him, because I have not studied the question. He is practically making a criticism of statements made by the hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce.


John William Bell: I may say that that matter is past, so far as I am concerned. I am merely speaking in consequence of what I understood the Minister of Agriculture to say last night.	.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: The hon. member is apparently undertaking to correct what the Minister of Trade and Commerce stated, and 1 was onlv going to suggest that he had better do that when the Minister of Trade and Commerce himself is present, when any statements he may have to make in reply to the hon. gentleman could be made. I am not myself in a position to go into the details of all these figures.


John William Bell: I was going to call the attention of the minister to the fact that I Mr. BELL.
haye already attempted to make that correction in the House, and I am precluded from doing so by the rules of the House. I am not doing that now. I am merely quoting the figures of the Year-book to show that the statement to the effect that this volume is inaccurate was thrown out I think too hastily. That statement was based on the fact that the estimated population of Canada did not turn out to be the correct population when the census figures were obtained. That could scarcely be hoped for. The Year-book does not publish, and never has published, these figures as being absolutely correct, but always as estimated ; and in order to avoid any misleading impression, the Year-book states as follows :
No information is available for ascertaining the increase of population since 1881 (except as above mentioned), with any great practical accuracy. The population used in different parts-of this work is derived from logarithmetical calculations based on census returns, and is believed to be sufficiently near the mark to be of value in the calculations for which it is used ; but it will be readily understood that from the absence of returns of births and deaths and from the incessant movement of population, both ways, across the long frontier, of which it is impossible to keep any record, it is impossible to obtain any absolutely correct statement of the population between census years:
The Year-book in making that careful provision has certainly prevented the estimated figures being the occasion of any error, and I may say that there is no other way in which this House or the departments could have the advantage of knowing what the population of Canada is in any particular year, except by using an estimate made up in this particular way. I would like to call the attention of the committee to the fact that this system is not peculiar to Canada, but that the same system is adopted in the official figures used in all countries. I quote from the Statesman's Year-book of 1892, to show that the system followed in Canada is followed in that publication. It says :
The registrar general's estimate of the population in the middle of each year is based on tho assumption that the rate of increase which prevailed in the intercensal period immediately preceding has since been maintained.
In making up these figures, we have to assume that the census returns are correct, and that the annual increase of population shown by the census returns is correct; and, using these two factors, by a purely mathematical calculation, an estimate is made each year of the population of Canada. While that is certainly liable not to be correct, still it is apparently made with every degree of honesty, without any intention to deceive, and is approximately correct; and I am sure that the minister, when he looks into the matter more fully, will find that he has nothing to apologize for so far as this publication issued under the authority of his department, is concerned. As the

figures are not represented to be tlie actual figures, but merely estimated figures, and as they are prepared by a system of logarithmic calculation, which excludes any idea of motive in their preparation, they are the same as any official would have to supply in making up these returns., I would not have made these remarks but that the minister last night seemed disposed to admit that there was an error in the calculation, which is not the case.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I am not going to accept any general statement of errors. If I do not find errors, 1 certainly will not act as if there were errors.


Robert Laird Borden: I wish to draw the attention of the minister to a matter which has been brought to my notice. I refer to the dismissal of Capt. D. C. Stewart, who occupied a position in connection with the quarantine service in Halifax until quite recently. I think he was removed on the 21st of November last, and I would like the minister to make a statement as to the causes which led to his removal.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: In reply to the hon. gentleman, I would say that it is true Capt. Stewart was dismissed after having being reported to the department as having been off duty without permission. The statement ns made was referred to him for a reply. In his defence lie distinctly admitted the offence. When the occurrence first took place, Dr. Monti-zambert was in England attending the tuberculosis convention, and I was also away at the moment for a short time. The gravamen of the offence was his going away from duty without permission, and his making misrepresentations to the head of the quarantine service at Halifax in regard to certain repairs which were being made to the boiler of the ship of which he was captain, the result being that boat was laid up for two weeks sooner than there was any need for, and the department had to hire another boat to take her place. These accusations were submitted to Capt. Stewart, and lie was given an opportunity to reply to them. It was clear from his own reply and from the evidence we obtained in regard to the matter, that he had been neglectful of his duty in being away without leave, and also that he had made misrepresentations, causing the laying up of the vessel. Under these circumstances, I did not see how it was possible to maintain the discipline of the establishment if I allowed him to remain in the service. I' therefore felt constrained, after long and careful investigation, to dismiss him from the service. I believe that I am stating the main facts correctly, and can supplement them by any further details, if required, from the correspondence before me.


Robert Laird Borden: Well, this gentleman was a very long time in the public
service-I understand upwards of twenty years-and I am not aware that any charge of any kind was ever made against him before. I took the liberty of asking the hon. member for Victoria, N.S., (Mr. Ross), who, when collector of customs at the port of Halifax, was the chief of this officer for a number of years, and he told me that, while in his department and under his control, Captain Stewart was a most faithful, zealous and efficient officer. And I have no doubt my hon. friend would repeat his statement were he here to-night. The charges against Captain Stewart were made by his superior officer, Dr. Maekay. Dr. Mackay charges him, in the first place, with having on the 24th of July, left the city between 11 and 12 o'clock in the morning, without permission, and with having gone out on the St. Margaret's Bay road on a spree, and remained away all afternoon. Captain Stewart absolutely and specifically denies this charge. He says that no vessel was expected and that, although he did go for a drive, during an hour or two, on the St. Margaret's Bay road, he had made provision so that in his absence there could be no detriment to the public service in case any vessel should be sighted. In the next place Dr. Mackay charges him with not having been on duty when the steamship ' Nassovia ' arrived from Stellin, for coal. Captain Stewart explains that Dr. Jones, the quarantine officer, boarded that vessel at seven in the morning, and that no delay whatever occurred in connection with the quarantine service, and in verification of that statement he referred the department to Dr. Jones himself, who is a well known physician in the city of Halifax, an officer of the department, and whose statement, I believe, would verify that of Captain Stewart. Captain Stewart is also charged by Dr. Mackay :
That in the afternoon of the 25th of July, the steamship 'Ulunda' arrived from Liverpool and steamed up the harbour with her quarantine signal flying and there was no word from you of her coming. Dr.. Mackay states he saw the quarantine signal on the 'Citadel' and called up his office four different times to ascertain f there was any word from you about the arrival of a vessel and always received a negative reply.
Captain Stewart replied :
When the steamship was coming up the harbour I called up- Dr. Maekay's house several times and could get no answer. After trying for some time without hearing from him, I then called up Dr. Jones, and was informed at his house that he was off duty attending the reception of Lord Minto, and Dr. Mackay knew it. After looking around the town, I went to the steamer and found that Dr. Mackay had been there ; 1 did not think the circumstance very remarkable, as I have frequently known Dr. Mackay to he an hour or so late getting to ships. I may say in this connection, as illustrating Dr. Mackay's anxiety to attend ships promptly that on the 9th August, the ss. 'Da-mara ' arrived from England at 11.40 ; it being Dr. Jones' turn and he being away I called Dr.

Mackay who was in bed and he refused to go to her, telling me to let her stay till Dr. Jones got home; he got home at 1 o'clock and went and cleared the ship.
There seems to be no contradiction of that statement in the papers, and it appears that this gentleman who made the charge against Captain Stewart was willing to allow the vessel to remain in quarantine for hours because it was not convenient for him to attend to it. With respect to the statement of the hon. minister that Captain Sewart misrepresented the circumstances with regard to the condition of the boiler on the ' Argus,' Captain Stewart's statement is as follows :
I beg to make a general and explicit denial. I could have no object in pursuing the course with which he charges me: he knew and we all knew that tile work had to be done, that Mr. Dodwell ordered it to be done, and that Messrs. Ferguson & Cox had the contract ; it could not be done without the boat laying up. She was there in the hands of the contractors with whom I 1 ad no interest in any way, and whether they were a short time or a long time doing the work was a matter oyer which I had no control, and certainly I had no interest in making any misrepresentations to Dr. Mackay or anybody else about it. He charges me with refusing to answer a letter he wrote asking for explanation' of the work : This charge is not true, I immediately went to him making verbal statement of the condition of the work ; having done so, I did not think it necessary to write hiro a formal letter on the subject which seems to be the essence of his complaint. In connection with Dr. Mackay's charges against me he makes several statements that are not in accordance with the facts; for instance ho says that I told him positively that the boiler uas finished at a certain date, with the exccp-ion of making a few holes. I never told him anything of the sort, I knew the boiler was not finished, and I never told him that it should take so many days to do any part df the work. I could not say anything about such work as it is altogether out of my line, and it would be absurd to suppose that I would be undertaking to give opinions or statements with regard to the same. If Dr. Mackay was very anxious to know about the progress of the work, he should have consulted the contractors or asked Mr. Case, the engineer, whose opinion would he worth something as it was directly in his line.
I have thus answered categorically the several charges which Dr. Macltay has laid against me in the discharge of my official duties, and will now refer the matter in connection therewith.
Captain Stewart says further :
After about sixteen years of official service under the government both in customs and quarantine, I beg to say that Dr. Mackay is the only man who has ever made rhe complaint against me during all that time. Dr. Mackay is a difficult man r.o get along with as everybody knows. I have do hesitation in referring to Dr. Jones with the utmost confidence that he will give me a certificate of character as a zealous and faithful officer as I have always tried to be.
Dr. Jones, to whom he refers is a warm supporter of the present government, a man who is well known and highly respect-Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).
ed in the city of Halifax, and I would like to know from the hon. minister whether he has any7 statement from Dr. Jones that in any way corroborates tbe charge of Dr. Mackay that Captain Stewart was at any time guilty of any dereliction of duty in the public service ?
There is another circumstance which seems to place this matter in not a very favourable light, from the standpoint of fair-play. Captain Stewart had sixteen years of good aud faithful sendee to his credit, without a single mark or charge against him up to this time. It is quite true, and I think I may say, without reflecting in any way on Dr. Mackay, that that gentleman is not a particularly easy person to get along with. Any one who knows him and is acquainted with his disposition, knows that he is sometimes a very difficult man to please indeed. Would it not have been fair for the hon. minister, under the circumstances, having this positive and categorical denial of all the charges, to have allowed Captain Stewart to bring evidence in support of tbe statements he made and to be confronted with tbe man who made tbe charges against him to have these charges determined by some impartial tribunal, with the right on both sides to call, and cross-examine witnesses, and thus be given that fair-play to which any man is entitled in respect of liis property and character in this country- the right to have a charge against him determined by an impartial tribunal in bis presence. But that is not the course which my hon. friend has pursued. It is true that Captain Stewart admits that he went out driving on Margaret's Bay road, but surely for a trivial offence of that kind-if it can be called an offence, which I doubt-after sixteen years faithful service, the Minister of Agriculture ought not to have dismissed an official of this kind. If he were to follow that line of conduct, there are very few officials in his department who would not be subject to instant dismissal, and I am sure that if he tested Dr. Mackay-and I am speaking not without the book in this connection-by that same measure, he would have been compelled to dismiss that gentleman long ago.
The Minister of Agriculture should reconsider this matter. He has dismissed this man without investigation, and on the statement of Dr. Mackay, which is absolutely disputed by Captain Stewart, except In the one respect I have mentioned, the trifling matter of taking a drive of two or three hours out St. Margaret's Bay Koad. But that was taken after precautions that the public interests should not suffer. Surely, on facts of that kind a man is not to be dismissed from tbe public service. Every charge made by Dr. Mackay is met with an exact and categorical denial. And what I say is that the Minister of Agriculture should have some regard to the statement made four or five years ago by tbe Prime Minis-

ter that no man against whom a charge is made should be dismissed without an investigation. Here is a man who seems to have been dismissed without an investigation. He has been in the public service sixteen years, and after giving his work to the country for that time, he is thrown out upon the world without the means of livelihood, no investigation having been held, and no opportunity afforded him of confronting his accusers or of calling witnesses on his own behalf.
There is another circumstance about it which is of an extremely harsh character, and that is that notwithstanding all that this man has paid into the superannuation fund for a number of years, he is absolutely unable to get the slightest satisfaction from the department as to whether any portion of the money paid will be refunded. Does the government propose to keep the money taken from an official in that way V Will the hon. minister add to the consolidated revenue of this country the few dollars which are nothing to the public, but which mean a great deal to this man ? Among the correspondence, 1 have statements showing some of the payments he has made. And it seems to me that the minister has not only treated this man with harshness in dismissing him, but with absolute indifference ever since on the question of these payments. Without casting any reflection upon any official of the department, I may say that the department did not seem to know, for months after Captain Stewart had sent in his denial of these charges, that he had written a letter on the subject at all. On the 13th August, Captain Stewart made his answers to the charges. On the. 5th of September he received a letter from the department stating that on the 10th of August he had been written to by the department, but no answer had been received. Ou the very day he received this letter he sent a telegram :
Replied to letter August 10th on 13th. Will mail copy to you at once.
The 13th would be the day when, in ordinary course of mail, he would receive the letter of August 10th. On the 7th September he received a letter asking why he did not answer the charges. On the same day he received that letter, he telegraphed to the department and also wrote. So far as the correspondence is concerned-if that is any indication of Captain Stewart's conduct as a public servant-he seems to have been up to the mark and to have conducted it in at least as businesslike a way as the department did. On the 16th September he communicated with the department on the question of whether an investigation would be granted or what course would be pursued. The next he heard in relation to this matter was on the 27th November, 1901, when lie was coolly informed that, without an investigation, he had been dismissed. And, according to the Order in Council he was dismissed for ' neglect of duty and misconduct and in the interest of the public service.' That remains against his character without liis having had a single opportunity of making his defence before any fair tribunal or of meeting his accusers face to face and producing witnesses on his own behalf. I do not suppose my hon. friend the Minister of Agriculture desires to be unjust to this man. I understand that, before he entered the public service Captain Stewart was a Conservative in politics. So far as I know, since he has been in the department he has taken no part in politics. If he has been a Conservative in politics in the past, that is no reason why he should be denied a fair trial or investigation. Why should any man in the public service to whom a salary and a position are an asset as much as property is an asset, be deprived of the position he holds and the salary he enjoys without a trial ? If that can be done why should not any man be deprived of his property or rights without trial in court ? What possible ground can the minister present for treating this officer in the way he has done ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I take no exception to the way in which the leader of the opposition has presented his case. He has presented fairly the facts he has stated, but he has not brought forward the facts which justify the course of the department. 1 may say that this matter lias nothing to do with politics. Captain Stewart's opinions were not in any way the reason for the action taken by the department. Captain Stewart had been for some time in the department as an employee of the Minister of Customs. Years ago, the boat at Halifax was jointly used by the Customs Department and the Department of Agriculture. Some time after the present Minister of Customs and I came into office a change was made. Though it was known to me that Captain Stewart had been a Conservative, I did not take advantage of the change, though it could have been done quite easily, to let him go from the service. This shows that there was no question of politics involved. Whether Captain Stewart has been, since I took office, a Conservative in politics or not, I do not know, and have not sought to ascertain. I certainly did not wish to be harsh in this case-do not like to be harsh in the case of any officer. At the same time, I feel that the discipline of the service must be maintained and, when it comes to a question between an inferior officer and a superior officer, and when the inferior officer has been clearly shown to have been derelict in his duty, it seems to me I must stand by the superior officer and maintain his authority and prestige in the department. Captain Stewart acknowledges that he was absent from duty without leave. He gives excuses, but the statement of his superior officer was very different from the one Captain Stewart



gives. Nevertheless, the fact that he was absent without leave was distinctly acknowledged by him. That was a dereliction of duty. But it was something which might have been overlooked if nothing else had occurred. Here was another matter, however, which was much more serious and which hurt the department much more, and was the fact of his laying up the boat two weeks before he ought to have done so, and worse than that, the misrepresentations, the false statements on his part to his superior officer, as his reasons for doing it. Now it may be said that these facts should have been brought out in an investigation. But as I said, we had first of all the statement of his superior officer, and when it comes to a mere matter of denial or assertion between two officers, I think it is more reasonable to accept that of the superior officer than that of the inferior. I have, however, here a letter written by the people who laid the boat up. who worked on the boat, in which they say distinctly that Captain Stewart's statement^ and representations are not true, and that as a matter of fdct he ought not to have laid up the boat then, that there was no need of doing so. This statement'is signed by Messrs. Ferguson and Cox, the machinists who were repairing the boiler of the boat, and it is written in answer to a letter from Dr. McKay asking them about it. It contains a clear statement from a disinterested party that Captain Stewart's representations as to his reason for laying up the boat, was incorrect and untruthful. Further than that, I find in a letter from Mr. Case, who was the engineer under Captain Stewart, that the latter had stated that he had been informed by Mr. Case that the boiler was ready to be put into the boat on the 15th of July, and he laid up the boat on the 15th of July. He represented that to Dr. McKay, and in his defence read by the hon. gentleman that is his excuse and his statement. But here is the statement of the engineer, and here is the statement of the people who were repairing the boiler, declaring distinctly that Captain Stewart had made a false statement and a false representation. Under these circumstances, and with these proofs, and with Captain Stewart's acknowledgment that he was away .from duty without leave, I felt that in order to maintain the discipline of- the station I had nothing (to do but to accept the complaints of tile superior officer against the subordinate, and to dismiss the subordinate. I do not see how I could have done anything else under the circumstances.
Mr. BORDEN Halifax). If anything could convince one who has examined the papers that there was an absolute necessity for an investigation, it is the answer the hon. gentleman has just made. Dr. McKay states that Captain Stewart made certain statements to him, and then he goes to these men who were to a certain extent under his Hon. Mr. FISHER.
control, Ferguson and Cox, and gets from them a letter stating that these representations, which he alleges Captain Stewart made to him, were untrue and incorrect. Captain Stewart's statement which I have read, and which the minister has apparently forgotten, if he ever read it-Captain Stewart's defence is, not that these representations were true, but that he made no such representations at all to his superior officer, and he points out the reasons why he could not possibly have made such representations. My hon. friend, in the hurry of departmental business, has apparently overlooked this, and he thinks there is some contradiction of Captain Stewart.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Why was the boat laid up ?


Robert Laird Borden: He explains why it was laid up, because Sir. Dodwell, the engineer in charge, decided that the boat must be laid up ; and he refers the minister, who apparently has not seen fit to act upon his suggestion-he refers him by implication to Sir. Dodwell, and he refers him by express direction to Mr. Case. But the letters which we have are not a contradiction of Captain Stewart at all, the letters which we have are statements from these men that the alleged representations to Dr. Slc-Ivay are incorrect. Captain Stewart's answer is that he never made any such representations 'to Dr. McKay, that he would have no object in doing so. The hon. gexi-tleman himself has demonstrated clearly the absolute necessity there was that this matter should have been referred to an impartial tribunal for inquiry. Then with respect to this alleged dereliction of duty in going out of town, I want to point out to the hon. gentleman further that no vessel came to Halifax that day, there was no detriment to the public service. Captain Stewart was in reach by telephone all the time, he was only a short distance out on the Margaret Bay Road ; and further than that, Mr. Case, the chief engineer who had charge of the boilers and engines while Captain Stewart was away, and the other men in charge were assigned their duties, and even if a vessel had been reported there could have been no possible detriment to the public service. Now the trivial offence of driving out to Margaret Bay Road in one day out of 1G years, is surely not to lie assigned by the hon. gentleman as a sufficient reason for the discharge of this man after 16 years of faithful service. I see before me my hon. friend from Victoria (Hon. Mr. Ross) who was the chief under whom Captain Stewart served for a considerable portion of Ins time, and I venture to think that my hon. friend from Victoria will corroborate what I have said as to Captain Stewart having been, while under his direction, a faithful, a capable and an efficient officer.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: The hon. gentleman has tried to infer

that Captain Stewart laid this boat up under Mr. Dodwell's orders. There is nothing to justify any such statement. Captain Stewart's statement is this :
I could have no object in pursuing the course with which he charged me; he knew and we all knew the wcrk had to be done, that Mr. Dod-welil ordered it to be done, and that Messrs. Ferguson & Cox had the contract.
That does not indicate that anybody had ordered Captain Stewart to lay the boat up then, nor was there any need for it when the boiler was not ready. He laid the boat up a fortnight before the boiler was ready, when these other people stated that the boiler was not ready, and 'when Captain Stewart knew it was not ready.


Robert Laird Borden: Assuming that his view of the facts is correct, which I do not admit, does my hon. friend suggest that an error of judgment in laying the boat up a fortnight beforehand, is a sufficient reason for discharging this man after 16 years of faithful service ? I do not think he will take that position.
Hon. Mr. ROSS (Victoria, N.S.) As the leader of the opposition has appealed to me, I may say, speaking from recollection, that I think Captain Stewart was under me 4:or about ten years. I did not know anything about his politics, whether he had any or not. I found him punctual, steady and attentive. His duties were to go out in his boat upon the harbour and see if there were any arrivals and to report himself to the customs collector in the morning and again in the afternoon. I never had any cause of complaint against him during all the time he was under me, and I am not hware that my successor in the customhouse had any reason to complain of him. 1 think I may say that if he had been continued under my successor in the customhouse, he would likely have been in hiS former position to-day. I may say again that this matter was brought to my notice in Halifax. My course, while in the custom-house when any officer neglected his duty, was to suspend him for a certain time and then restore him so as to give him another trial. My own feeling at the time was that to dismiss Captain Stewart without giving him a chance, after two or three months suspension, was, perhaps, applying to the case a more severe discipline than it merited.


Samuel Hughes: Did the hon. member for Victoria, N.S. (Mr. Ross) ever have any occasion to suspend this officer
Hon. Mr. ROSS (Victoria, N.S.) I never had any occasion to find fault with him during all the time he was under me.


Samuel Hughes: Is the hon. Minister of Agriculture going to restore this officer to his position ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I fear it would be quite impossible to maiu-924
tain the discipline of the port if he were to be restored. It is evident that the tension between the subordinate and superior officers in consequence of this trouble had reached such a point that discipline could not be maintained if this officer were to be restored. In addition to the inferior officer having been derelict in his duty he has also made accusations against his superior officer.


Samuel Hughes: Has he had an opportunity of proving the accusations against his superior officer ? It is no crime for a junior officer to make accusations against a superior officer in this country. Fortunately we have here no tyranny such as that. Does the hon. minister mean to say that the fact of Captain Stewart simply making charges against his; superior officer is a justification for dismissing the junior Officer ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: No, I did not say that. He was dismissed in consequence of the facts which have already been laid before the House, and' not because he made charges against his superior officer.


Edward Hackett: After hearing the statement that the hon. minister has made, I think it is the superior officer and not the subordinate officer who is to blame on this occasion- The proper course for the superior officer to pursue, as we are informed by the hon. gentleman (Mr. Ross, Victoria) who. has had the experience of many years in the service, would be to suspend this officer if he was charged with a dereliction of duty instead of dismissing him in the arbitrary manner in which he was dismissed. This is not British fair-play or British justice. This gentleman who had been in the service for a long time, as we have been informed by the hon. member for Victoria, N.S., had the right to a fair trial. He might have been suspended by his superior officer and after investigation if he was found guilty of a dereliction of duty, then, he might have been dismissed. But, we find the superior oflicer, without giving this man an opportunity of pleading his case, or representing his case before his superior officer, dismisses him in the most arbitrary manner. It is the superior officer and not the subordinate who was guilty in this respect. Captain Stewart should be restored to his position and the man who dismissed him without investigation should be dismissed.


Robert Laird Borden: 'I would like to say to the hon. Minister of Agriculture that I have not used all the material in my possession, because I do not desire to do so at present. I would like him to give this matter some consideration, and at a future time I may ask him as to| what course he will take in regard to certain officers in his department in the province of Nova Scotia against whom certain neglect of duty very

much more serious than anything that has been urged against Captain Stewart can be proved, if I am correctly informed. I will ask the hon. gentleman on a subsequent occasion, with that information in my hand, as to what course he will take if the charges which I will mention to him can be proved, and whether he will give any opportunity of proving them. What is right for one officer in the hon. gentleman's department, if politics do not touch this matter, will be equally right and just for any other officer in this department. I would like the hon. gentleman to give this matter some consideration and probably at a subsequent date I will take the opportunity of bringing to his attention certain information which has been placed in my possession in regard to the management of his department by other officers in the province of Nova Scotia.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Certainly. I can take no exception to the hon. gentleman (Mr. Borden, Halifax) availing himself of such an opportunity, and I can assure him that if wrong-doing is proved against any of my officers I shall treat theml in the way that is merited in consequence of it.


Robert Laird Borden: 
James Clancy: Is the minister disposed to take into consideration the strong protest made by very prominent gentlemen with regard to the tuberculin test. The minister is aware that the test has become very unpopular, and the protest against it comes from those who are in a position to judge of its value. I am informed that the Minister of Agriculture is at cross purposes with Mr. Dryden, the Ontario Minister of Agriculture, in regard to this matter.


John McGowan: Is this for the tuberculin cattle test ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: That is included in this vote.


John McGowan: We want to know something about it.	.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: If the hon. gentleman will let me know in what particulars he wishes information, I will be very glad to give it to him.


Samuel Hughes: Perhaps the hon. gentleman will explain the item.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: This item, I may say, is a combination of three items, which we have been in the habit of placing in our estimates for years. We have always had an item for general quarantine service, including cattle quarantine, an item for hog cholera and an item for tuberculosis The item for hog cholera was to pay the expenses in connection with the outbreaks of hog cholera and to pay compensation for the animals we slaughtered. The item, for tuberculosis was to deal with that disease in the country and to guard against dts introduction into the country. The item for general cattle quarantine was for the purpose of maintaining the general quarantine staff and of providing quarantine especially at our seaports, and at one point between us and the United States, and also to provide for certain work that has been done inside the country by


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I suppose the hon. gentleman (Mr. Clancy) alludes to a newspaper report of a meeting of the Shorthorn Breeders' Association at which they condemned the tuberculin test. The minutes of that meeting contain no such resolution as was reported in the papers. On the contrary, there is a resolution in the minutes dealing with the 90 days quarantine against Great Britain, and another resolution expressing the hope that they may have an opportunity of discussing the question of the tuberculin test with the chief veterinarian. I am very glad to meet them in that way, and as a matter of fact the chief veterinarian has already commenced a discussion with these gentlemen on the matter.


James Clancy: I did not make any reference to any resolution, but I said that strong protests were made by certain very prominent live stock breeders. I do not think the minister will deny that these protests have been made.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I am aware that certain protests have been made. I have had myself a good deal of correspondence with certain gentlemen on this question, and representations have been made to me which I have replied to in regard to statements of fact and also in regard to the question of quarantine. This question is considerably complicated and a good many of the statements made have been


Robert Laird Borden: made without full knowledge of certain facts which I have been able to bring to the attention of these gentlemen. Not more than a couple of weeks ago a meeting of the Executive of the Shorthorn Breeders' Association (at which several of the gentlemen who made the strongest protests to me were present), discussed this question with Dr. Rutherford. There was a pretty unanimous expression of opinion that it was well to have further discussion, and that the situation was not such to-day as these gentlemen thought it was when they made the representations. There are reasons why, in the interest of the stock-breeders of this country, it would not be wise for me to state more than I have said in the present condition of the discussion with my department.


John McGowan: At Guelph, the hon. Mr. Dryden was very emphatic in his protest against this tuberculin test, and I think he had the sympathy of most of the breeders who were present at that time.
THE MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE. I think I appreciate the situation fully with regard to that, and I can assure the hon. gentleman that I am willing to do all that I possibly can to facilitate the importation, provided the interests of the live stock breeders of this country are not jeopardized.


James Clancy: Has not the hon. minister practically tied his hands by the quarantine arrangements he has made. Is it not a fact that if it is thought well to give effect to these protests it will practically overturn the arrangements made by the minister. If that be the only reason the minister has for refusing to abolish the test, that objection should not be allowed to stand in the way.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I can only say that the reason which I have alluded to and which I would not care to state to-night, are not reasons which relate to any work I have done, but are simply in the interest of the live stock trade of the country, as the gentlemen with whom I have discussed the matter fully appreciate.
C.uatoms

Salaries and contingent expenses of the several pores, 5969,865.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: There is an increase of $10,000 in this item, and it is one that is absolutely necessary in the growing work of the department.


James Clancy: The hon. gentleman passed a eulogium on his officers not long since, showing how well and economically the service was being conducted, and how the expenses were going down ; but it would seem that the growing time is increasing salaries and causing the opposite course to be taken from that stated by the hon. gentleman not many hours ago. Perhaps he will tell us where these increases are made.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: I shall be glad to do that. The increase in work is something like 5 or 6 per cent over last year, while the increase in the expenditure amounts to one and one-half per cent. There are applications from officers in all parts of the Dominion for increases, and they receive the best consideration which we are able to give them, but we cannot meet the wishes of all by any manner of means. It is intended at the beginning of the fiscal year to do something for such officers as we consider are underpaid, if the House gives us this amount of money. We also find that during the year expenses come upon us which cannot be foreseen, in the growing business of the country, and I have to ask the House to have some confidence in me, and to allow me the amount I ask, which will not be expended unless it is absolutely required. 1 think the hon. gentleman will agree that while the expenditure is increasing the work is increasing much more. I do not simply mean that we are taking in extra revenue, but that owing to the immense increase of traffic receipts, the number of entries has greatly increased the amount of clerical work that has to be performed and the outside services that have to be rendered in the transit of goods. For instance, I have now a requisition from my inspector who says that it is necessary to have two extra men at Fort Erie, in order that the increasing transfer work may be properly attended to. Of course, there is no revenue derived from that. Along the boundary in the eastern townships we have the same thing to look after. At Depot Harbour, where a couple of years ago we had none, it is necessary for us to have one officer all the time, and perhaps this year we may have to have two. I merely cite these as illustrations of the work that cannot be foreseen ; and I have to ask the House to have some confidence in me, because in reality I have to provide for a year and a half ahead. We cannot tell what demand will be made upon us. I can only assure hon. gentlemen that there is no extravagance so far as I know. In fact many of the officers to whom we have found ourselves unable to give any increase, have made out a pretty strong case, and we have to try to meet these cases and do justice as far as we can.


Mr. LAVELL.: I hope the minister will bear in mind the need of an additional transfer officer at Smith's Falls, where the transfer work has very largely increased.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: I thank the hon. gentleman for reminding me of that. That is just one illustration of what I have been saying. Such an appointment is one which cannot be deferred much longer in the interest of the service.


Samuel Hughes: Has the minister dispensed with the services of any of his officers during the past year ?


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: I dare say there have been some-not many, I think.


Samuel Hughes: Will he recall them ?	_


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: During the past year I think there was only one, He was at Windsor. Unfortunately we had two or three cases, which I regret very much for the sake of the parties involved, in which there were defalcations. Although these were made good to the department, the view taken by the department is that it is dangerous to exercise clemency in cases involving money. Though if I had followed my own feelings I would have gladly have done so. In a case of neglect of dirty or perhaps intemperance, there is a suspension for a little time and a restoration ; but where there has been a misappropriation of funds, we have felt it necessary to make an invariable rule applicable to all officers in all parts of the Dominion. But there have not been many dismissals.


Samuel Hughes: None for po-liitcal partisanship, I suppose ?


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: No, I do not remember any for partisanship during the past year. There were some after the election of 1896, but that is all over.


Mr. WILSON.: I would like to ask the minister whether the landing waiter at Nap-anee, Mr. C. B. Perry, has resigned, and if so, whether it is his intention to appoint another.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: The landing waiter at Napanee unfortunately had a paralytic stroke, and his resignation, I believe, is in the department, and I think the Treasury Board has acted upon it. If I remember rightly it was recommended that he be superannuated, but I think he was given two or three months leave of absence, the superannuation to take effect at the end of that time. A new officer will have to be appointed there, or, if I am not mistaken, he has been appointed.


Uriah Wilson: Will the minister let us know to-morrow whether he is appointed, and if so, who he is ? Of course he will hardly tell us who recommended him.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: I recommended him myself, I suppose. I think the gentleman who has been recommended is Mr. Hanley.


Uriah Wilson: I suppose that is Mr. Hanley who has been station-master a great many years ?


Hon. Mr. PATERSON.: 


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: I have not the information here, but if the bon. gentleman will call at my office I will not have the slightest hesitation in telling him.


Edward Hackett: Was Mr. James Curry, formerly collector of customs at Charlottetown retired from the service, and if so, why ? Were any charges brought against him ?


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: I think that he was superannuated and a successor appointed.


Edward Hackett: How old was he ?


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: I have not the civil service list, but he must have been between 60 and 70. Perhaps the hon. gentleman knows his age.


Edward Hackett: Would the hon. minister state upon whose recommendation he was retired ?


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: I did not expect to be asked for the details and have not got the information here, but I will bring it to the hon. gentleman.


Edward Hackett: I am very pleased to hear that the minister will bring the information. I know Mr. Curry. He is a man of middle age, in splendid vigour, and quite as competent for the duties of the office as ever he was.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: How old is he ?


Edward Hackett: A little over 60, and but very few years older than the man who was appointed in his place.


Robert Laird Borden: The successor is generally older.


Edward Hackett: In this case he is younger but only by very few years. I have known Mr. Curry since he has been in the public service, and I know that a better, more faithful and more efficient officer could not be had, and he is quite as capable to-day as he was 20 years ago.


James Clancy: Why was he retired ?


Edward Hackett: To make place for a party heeler-a man who supported the government and for whom no place could be found unless somebody else's head were rolled into the basket. I have nothing to say about his successor, but he is not much younger than Mr. Curry. Mr. Curry must have been superannuated on the recommendation or report of one of the officials of the department. Mr. McLaren is the inspector of customs for the lower provinces, and I would like to know if he reported that Mr. Curry should be superannuated on account of age.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: I will find out and let the hon. gentleman know.


James Clancy: I would like to ask tlie minister if any portion of this increase of $10,000 is intended to be used for the purpose of making the town of Dresden a port of entry. Very strong pressure has been brought on the hon. gentleman's department to make it a port of entry. I admit that the business done there in the past would perhaps not have warranted his doing so, but a large beet sugar industry is well under way there, it is now doing a considerable export and import business, and the people are without those facilities to which a place of the importance which Dresden has suddenly developed is entitled to. The people there should not be obliged to go to Wallace-burg, twelve miles away on the one hand or to Chatham twelve miles away on the other, and I cannot conceive of any more pressing case than this one. More than half a million dollars are being expended there now, large quantities of goods are being shipped from other ports and are being brought in, and to make it a port of entry would not entail an expenditure, of more than $400 to $500. Or it might be made an outport of the town of Wallaceburg, if nothing better could be done. If the hon. minister knew all the circumstances and was aware of all the possibilities with regard to the business of the place, he would grant my request. If no portion of this vote is to go for that purpose, I would ask my hon. friend to make provision for it in the supplementaries, which no doubt he will bring down.


Mr. STEPHENS.: I wish to back up my hon. friend from Bothwell (Mr. Clancy) in his request. Dresden is a growing town. A large beet-root sugar factory is being built there, and It is fully entitled to a customs officer. Many smaller places have such accommodation. I have been asked to press this claim on the minister, and I did put it before him at one time but he did not give me very much encouragement. I hope, however, he will see his way clear to open an office there this year.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: This is just another instance in which it is desirable to trust me a little in the matter of increasing the expenditure. This is one of the many places asking to be made a port of entry or the outport of some other port. We are unable to meet all the applications, and our usual plan is to send down one of our inspectors to visit the place and ascertain what amount of business is done, and the revenue likely to be derived, and be guided in a large measure by his report. I endeavour to accommodate the people as much as possible. By what my hon. friend as told .me, Dresden is likely to become a much more important point than it has been, and while we may not be able to see our way clear to give it the facilities of a port at present, perhaps before I have the opportunity of asking a grant another year, it may become apparent that it should be
made an outport. This vote covers the whole Dominion except the Yukon, and I could not possibly meet all the requisitions made out of this vote, but the matter is engaging the attention of the department, and if we have not a report already from the inspector, he will be asked to furnish it.


James Clancy: I am very glad that the hon. gentleman has this place in his mind, and I hope that before the session closes he will see his way clear to grant the request. Where did they enter principally, Chatham or Wallaceburg ?


James Clancy: When navigation was closed, it would enter at Chatham, but during the season of navigation probably some would come from the American side by rail, and some by water, requiring entries to be made at both places. I am glad the minister has said that he will take the matter into consideration, and hope that before the session closes we will be able to settle it.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: Is it to Dresden or to Wallaceburgh that they are moving the factory from Michigan ?
Mr. CLANCY'. I think the hon. gentleman (Mr. Paterson) is under a misapprehension. In the early history of the Wallaceburgh factory there was some negotiation looking to an arrangement of that kind. The Benton Harbour sugar factory, it seems, had been built in a locality that turned out unsuitable for the growth of the sugar beet. They did not come to an arrangement with regard to Wallaceburgh, but Berlin, I believe, has been chosen as the place to which the Benton Harbour factory is to be removed. The buildings at Dresden and Wallaceburgh are new, and so are the plants. Taking the two places together, the probability is that about a million and a quarter will be spent. So, the hon. gentleman will see, that it is very important that facilities should be afforded.


Uriah Wilson: Is the collector of customs at Napanee also the collector of inland revenue and inspector of gas meters ?


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: In the absence of my colleague the Minister of Inland Revenue, I am unable to answer that question definitely.


Uriah Wilson: I think Inspector Johnson, of Belleville, inspects the gas.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: I am under the impression-but I may be wrong- that the collector of customs at Napanee is an officer of the Customs Department alone.	*


Samuel Hughes: Mr. Johnson inspects the electric light.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: And gas too, I fancy.

Mi'. WILSON. I may say that this man's predecessor was collector of inland revenue and gas inspector, and I think the hon. gentleman will find that the present collector of customs at Napanee is also collector of inland revenue. I have no objection to that, but wished to know the facts.
Customs laboratory-to meet expenditure in connection with the testing of sugar, molasses, &c., including pay of officers appointed or employed for that purpose, $121,500.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: There is an increase of $5,000. That is accounted for by the fact that one of the appraisers who was formerly paid from the inside vote has been transferred to the Board of Customs staff. This was Mr. Breadner, whose salary is $1,500. He is check clerk and Dominion appraiser. As the others were paid out of the outside vote, it was thought desirable that he should be paid from the same source. He is one of the Board of Appraisers. We have appointed an additional special officer at $1,000 a year to appraise machinery imported. There is a great deal of machinery coming in. For instance, sawmills have been removed from Michigan and are brought to Sarnia and other points In western Ontario. Of course this is second hand machinery, and we wanted an expert judge of the values of it. I think we have secured a good one.


James Clancy: Who is he ?


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: He is a gentleman who was for many years one of the foremen in the large machine shops of the Waterous firm at Brantford.


Samuel Hughes: That is where the Minister of Customs comes from.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: Yes, though I do not represent that riding now, as the hon. gentleman knows.


John Reeve Lavell: What work is done in the Customs laboratory ?


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: We have a chemist, with some young ladies as assistants. When we adopted the new tariff we reverted to the old polariscopic test for sugar. Samples have to come here from all over the Dominion to be tested. That is the principal work in the laboratory.


John Reeve Lavell: Are no other articles examined there ?


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: For instance, there are patent medicines. As the hon. gentleman knows, if there are spirits in these articles, however small the quantity, the duty is double. These have to be tested. Many other articles also have to be tested in the laboratory. But the greater part of the work is the polariscopic test of sugar.


John Reeve Lavell: I mentioned the matter because it seems to me that in some ways Hon. Mr. PATERSON.
the work might be extened. There is one item that comes under the attention of the Minister of Inland Revenue. But, so far as the goods are imported, it seems to me that the analysis and test might be made at the border. I refer to fertilizers. Under the Act, only fertilizers having a certain quantity of nitrogen or phosphorous or both can be sold in Canada. These articles are manufactured in Canada, and when so manufactured come under the test of the Inland Revenue Department. And so do the others, for that matter. I notice that in the last bulletin, No. 75, issued by the Inland Revenue Department, there are a large number of cases where the requirements of the Act are not complied with, and, almost invariably they are fertilizers that have been imported. This ia a matter to which I intended to call the attention of the Minister of Inland Revenue, but the importation of fertilizers affects the Customs Department. The Act says :
No fertilizer shall he sold or offered or exposed for sale unless it contains at least eight per cent of available phosphoric acid, or four per cent of ammonia or its equivalent in nit-' 1'ogen or nitric acid : or, when both phosphoric acid and ammonia are present, at least live per cent of available phosphoric acid and two per cent of ammonia or its equivalent in nitrogen or nitric acid.
I find that almost the bulk of the fertilizers imported have under the percentage that is called for and which is required from the manufacturers in Canada. I know at the present time it does not a/ppear to come under the department of the Minister of Customs; but I think it would be a wise thing if these fertilizers as they are imported could be analyzed in the customs laboratory, for once they get into this country it is hard to follow them up.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: That work has been wholly done by the Inland Revenue Department.


John Reeve Lavell: But it is only done when samples are found here afterwards. And it seems to me the place to head them oft is in the Customs Department at the border. Might it not be possible to have articles like that also analyzed in the customs laboratory ?


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: I will remember what the hon. gentleman says, and I will discuss with the commissioner to see what can he done. It has been done hitherto toy the Department of Inland Revenue, and I thought it had been done well. I think they are required to send samples of all these fertilizers to the Department of Inland Revenue.


John Reeve Lavell: I think -they do so. because an analysis of some samples is given here. I find on one page samples of some eight or ten compound fertilizers, every one of which is a long way below the percentage required.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Do I understand the hon. gentleman to say that the Act prescribes what shall be the ingredients of the fertilizers ?


John Reeve Lavell: Not exactly the ingredients. I read the Act, that is subsection 2 of section 7. It does not say what other ingredients the compound must contain, but these ingredients must be present that are mentioned, or they cannot be sold within the Act to which Canadian manufacturers are compelled to conform. It seems to me that those importing fertilizers into this country should be subject to some test, and it could be most readily made by. the customs officer at the border.


Robert Laird Borden: I would like to poiut out to the Minister of Customs that he seems to have got a very extraordinary conglomeration of subjects under this item. I should think it would be far better to divide the vote according to the different items. He begins with salaries and travelling expenses of inspectors of ports and travelling expenses of other officers in the preventive service; then he goes to the customs laboratory and to an expenditure in connection with the test of sugar, molasses, &c., then he leaves that and goes to the board of customs ; he leaves that and goes to salaries of officers employed for compiling statistical returns. It is a remarkable mixture of subjects to include under one vote. Perhaps it has always been so. but if that is the case, it is not any more justifiable. The object of dividing these votes into items as to restrict the expenditure for specific subjects to the amount voted. When you bring together subjects so dissimilar in their nature under one enormous vote of $121,000. it does not seem to me that we are carrying out the idea of parliamentary control to any appreciable extent. Has the item always been voted in this way ?


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: 1 think so.


Robert Laird Borden: Why are these subjects grouped together which have no possible connection with each other ?


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: That vote is what we term the outside vote. The inspectors and their travelling expenses are connected with the outside service, and the appraisers are paid out of this vote. The statistical branch has been brought to Ottawa from the outside, and the work is being done here. The quarterly returns were all prepared at the different ports throughout the Dominion and were sent up to Ottawa where they were compiled and published in the Trade and Navigation Returns. When we instituted this statistical department, in order to get out the monthly statements, the officers performing the duties at the different outside points were brought here. It is really outside work, but they
were brought here and are doing it here. That being the case, it was put in under this vote. There are a large number employed, and it was thought desirable they should be placed under that vote instead of being brought into the inside service. Perhaps some of them could not come under the inside service from being over age.


Robert Laird Borden: I was not finding any fault with^the removal of the officers to Ottawa for' the purpose of preparing these statistical returns. While I do not know much about it, I believe it was regarded by people who were competent to judge as rather a good move. But I wish to know why we should group together travelling expenses, the testing of sugar and molasses, the board of customs and statistical returns. This may be all right, but why group them under one item ? The idea of parliamentary control of the expenditure is inconsistent with that. You might come down to this House and ask us for $57,000,000 for the general expenditure of this country ; that might be convenient for the government, but it would not be consistent with the idea of parliamentary control of expenditure. I would like to have an opportunity of looking into that to see whether there has been any recent change made in the manner of presenting this class of votes. Perhaps, as the hon. gentleman has not his assistant here, and lias not been able to give us some information we have asked for, it would be as well to let the item stand and not go any further to-night. I noticed a moment ago there were only thirteen gentlemen on the government side of the House.


Samuel Hughes: Shall we vote them down ?
Mr. BORDEN Halifax). I do not think we. perhaps, had. better proceed with this item.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: I have no objection at all if the hon. gentleman desires to allow the item to stand. That is the way it was passed last year.


Robert Laird Borden: There are some gentlemen who take a little interest in this department who are not here.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: Shall we take up any other items or allow the whole *thing to stand ?


Robert Laird Borden: Perhaps, as we had rather a late session this morning, we had better allow it to stand. I do not think it will delay the hon. gentleman in any way. We will try to expedite his estimate.


Mr. INGRAM.: I woidd like some information, when the hon. gentleman discusses the other' items, in respect to the investigation made at the St. Thomas port of entry in regard to the last collector of customs.


Mr. BOYD.: I would like to draw the attention of tlie hon. Minister of Customs to the matter of the inspection of coal oil at Port Arthur. During the discussion with the hon. Minister of Inland Revenue (Mr. Bernier), while his estimates were being voted, the matter of the abominable coal oil that passed the customs officer and which went broadcast over the country thereby becoming a scandal, the question was asked as to who was responsible for it and the hon. Minister of Inland Revenue, whom we believed at that time to be responsible, said that it was the collector of customs at that port who was responsible. I would like the hon. Minister of Customs to be able to say to the House if he has had any complaints against that inspection, or what explanation his officer has made when he takes his estimates up again. 1 assume' that it cannot have been unknown to the government, or to the minister who has charge of the officer at Port Arthur.,that he permitted this enormous quantity of inferior coal oil to cover the whole country from Edmonton to the Red River as was shown by every hon. member from the North-west Territories during the time the question was under discussion with the hon. Minister of Inland Revenue.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: I was not in the House when the question was discussed with the hon. Minister of Inland Revenue but, knowing that the question had arisen, I thought we had better have inquiries made about it and I had inquiries made. I did not know whether the discussion would be renewed again or not, but the hon. member for East Lambton (Mr. Simmons), wishing to go home. I said to him that I did not think my estimates would be reached before he came back. He has gone and now that the hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Borden, Halifax) has asked me to let my estimates remain and as the hon. member for Macdonald (Mr. Boyd) has mentioned a question that he desires information on before we go on, perhaps I had better alow my estimates to stand till the hon. member for East Lambton comes back, lest he might think it was a breach of faith on my part, although I told him that I could not tell whether the question would come up or not, and so, my estimates, if there are others ready to be gone on with, may be allowed to stand until next week.


James Clancy: The hon. member for East Lambton stated to me to-day that he had an understanding with the hon. Minister of Customs. He intimated that he was going home and that he felt some security in being able to leave for a day or two in consequence of that understanding.	/


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: I would not have gone on to-night at all but there did not seem to be any of my colleagues ready to go on. But I had made up my Mr. INGRAM.
mind that if the question arose I would ask that an item be allowed to stand upon which to discuss it on a future occasion. If any of my colleagues are ready to go on, my estimates had better stand until next week.


John McGowan: Referring to page 169 of the report of the hon. gentleman's department, I would like to know whether the linseed oil mentioned there is entered as impeiriol gallons ?


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: I expect so.


John McGowan: Do you know as a fact ?
. The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS. I will make inquiry. The hon. gentleman is referring to imported oil ?


John McGowan: Yes, imported oil. The American gallon is less than our gallon.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: Yes.


John McGowan: Is the quantity entered given in imperial gallons ?


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: Yes, I have no doubt about it.


Edward Hackett: Referring to the matter we were discussing a moment ago in regard to the collector at Charlottetown the hon. minister said that he had not the civil list and that he could not tell the age of that gentleman. I have taken the pains to send for the civil list and I find that James Currie was born on the 7th January, 1835, which would make him 67 years of age. He was appointed to his position on the 19th May, 1880, so that he was 22 years in the service. Of course, he was capable of being superannuated. I find also that Mr. William Albert Lochart was appointed collector of customs at the port of St. John, a very important port, on the 7th May, 1900, and that he was born on the 11th March. 1835, being just the same age as Mr. Currie when he was appointed to that position. Mr. Currie has been superannuated because of old age and Mr. Lockhart who is of the same age was appointed two years ago as collector of customs at the port of St. John. I consider that scarcely fair. Mr. Currie belongs to that race of men who, at 60 or 70 years of age, are active and vigorous as may be instanced by our good friend from Victoria, N.S. (Mr. Ross) who is 80 years of age and who is active and vigorous still. I say it is entirely wrong for this man to be superannuated at the age of 67 when you appointed a man two years ago at the port of St. John of the same age. and especially when you superannuated Mr. Currie, not because of old age, but because you desired to find a place for an importunate partisan.
Some resolutions reported.
On motion of the Prime Minister, House adjourned at 11.55 p.m.


Thursday, April 17, 1902.