1903-07-23

Mr.  D. C.@: FRASER (Guysborough) moved that the Select Standing Committee on Pri-



vileges and Elections, to which were referred certain allegations respecting the sale to the government, by George Loy, Esquire, member for the electoral district of Beau-harnois, of certain properties in the town of Valleyfield, he authorized to employ a shorthand writer to take down such evidence as the commitee may deem necessary.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr.  C. S.@: HYMAN (London) moved that the following Bills be withdrawn, in accordance with the recommendation contained in the twenty-sixth report of the Standing Committee on Railways, Canals and Telegraph Lines : Bill (No. 210) respecting the Nipissing and Ottawa Railway Company ; Bill (No. 6) to amend the Railway Act; Bill (No. 16) to amend the Railway Act ; Bill (No. 19) respecting drainage and the right of way across the property of railway companies ; Bill (No. 23) to indemnify those who suffer damages in consequence of fires caused by railways ; Bill (No. 77) to promote the safety of railway employees.


Mr. SPEAKER.: I am not sure whether this motion would be in order, because it concerns both public and private Bills. No doubt the motion would be in oi'der so far as private Bills are concerned, but so far as public Bills are concerned I have some doubts, and I would ask the hon. gentleman not to press his motion until I have looked into the matter.
Motion withdrawn.



QUESTIONS.

[Stage Direction]
COLLECTOR OF CHAjMBLY CANAL.
Mi-. MONK-by Mr. Taylor-asked :
1.	Has the government notified Jules Quesnel, collector of the Chambly canal at St. John, that his services are or will be dispensed with ?
2.	Is it the intention of the government to dismiss the said officer ?
3.	What reason is there for the dismissal or removal of the said officer ?

Mr. LENNOX asked :: 1.	When the correspondents of the * Labour Gazette ' were appointed, what remuneration was agreed upon or fixed ?
2.	Has the rate of remuneration been increased ?
3.	Have increased duties or services been exacted of the correspondents without increased remuneration ?
4.	Have representations and complaints been made to the Department of Labour touching these questions, by the correspondents of the * Gazette ' ?
5.	Have the alleged grievances been redressed ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL (Hon. Sir William Mulock).: When correspondents of the ' Labour Gazette ' are appointed they are paid a sum of $100 per annum to make a monthly report as to the condition of industrial matters in the district in which the correspondent resides. There has been no change of any kind in the terms of their engagement. It is possible that on some occasions a labour correspondent may have more work to perform than another, but his engagement is to serve as correspondent at his place of residence. There has been one application for an increase, which is now under consideration.	*


PERSONAL EXPLANATION.
Mr. H. BOURASSA (Labeile).: Before the Oi-ders of the Day are called, I want to refer to reports that have appeared, particularly in some of the newspapers belonging to the party of the opposition. It is stated in these papers that I initiated the debate on stock speculation the day before yesterday for the purpose of assisting the government to take up time while we were waiting for their railway policy. I need hai-dly say that such intention never entered my mind. I might not have referred to the matter wei-e it not that the same opinion was expressed by the leader of the opposition yesterday in the House. On the same day on which I made the motion, another hon. gentleman, during my absence from the House, the member for West Toronto, stated plainly that the government had succeeded in getting one of their followers to waste another afternoon.


Mr. CLARKE.: Do you refer to me ?


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: To the hon. member for West Toronto.
Mi-. CLARKE. I represent West Toronto.
Mi-. BOURASSA. Then it is a mistake in Hansard.' I mean Mr. Osier. But, coming from that gentleman, I would not mind the charge : I know where the shoe pinched him. As far as the hon. leader of the opposition is concerned, I think our personal relations are such that I might appeal to the fairness of that hon. gentleman. I can tell him that members of the government have trouble enough with me in connection with their government business that they would never think of asking me to do that which it has been suggested I have done ; and I would be the last man to enter into such a compact.


Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).: Let me say t">
my hon. friend that I would accept most


Hr. FRASER.: freely and fully any assurance from liim either in the House or out of the House. What I said yesterday was that we were marking time because my hon. friend proposed a resolution from which, with all deference to his views, I did not think that very much practical good would come, although I quite recognized his desire to bring about an improvement in the conditions to which his resolution had reference. I do know that the resolution was withdrawn. It was only in that way that I was suggesting that we were marking time. As my hon. friend says, our personal relations have always been such that I am certain it needs no assurance from me that I was not for a moment casting any reflection upon his motives.


STRIKE OF EMPLOYEES OF CANADA FOUNDRY COMPANY.
Mr. RALPH SMITH (Vancouver).: Mr. Speaker, before the Orders of the Day are called, I would like to ask the hon. Minister of Labour if any representations have been made to him in regard to the trouble existing in Toronto between the Canada Foundry Company and the iron moulders of that city ? According to the press of that city, it appears that matters are in a very serious condition, the company being represented as bringing out a large contingent from the old country evidently to take the places of the strikers, and that the men are now making arrangements to be taken back. I would like to know if any representations have been made to the Department of Labour on the subject ?


Mr. SPROULE.: That subject was discussed for two hours last night.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL (Hon. Sir William Mulock).: In reply to my hon. friend (Mr. Smith, Vancouver), I would say that the department has received no communication from any person in reference to the strike in question. The strike is a somewhat serious one, and as has just been mentioned by the hon. member for East Grey (Mr. Sproule) was the subject of a reference in the House last night. Neither party having applied to the department for intervention, it is a question whether any proffer of intervention would be acceptable. However, it was pressed upon the attention of the government that the department should proffer its services, and having considered that suggestion, I have given instructions to the department to have a communication directed to the representatives of the different interests offering the services of the department. Whether or not they will be accepted, or if accepted they will be productive of any good, is a matter the future only can tell, but the hon. member for Winnipeg (Mr. Puttee) said last night-I do not know his source of information-that as far as the Foundry Company were concerned, they were not free
agents in the matter, and could not withdraw without the consent of some other union, I think some American union. However, that would be for them to consider in ease they are willing to accept the services of the department.


Mr. HUGHES (Victoria).: I desire to draw the attention of the hon. Minister of the Interior (Hon. Mr. Sifton) to a number of Scotch labourers and workmen who have been brought to this country and who I believe are being returned for certain reasons. I desire to ask him if he has considered the injurious effect the return of these men would have upon immigration to Canada from the old land.


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR (Hon. Mr. Sifton).: In reply to the hon. gentleman (Mr. Hughes, Victoria) I would say I have not given the subject any special consideration. I may say further that I am satisfied that the movement of the people referred to, to Canada, was in no way due to the action of the officers of the Department of Immigration. Whether it is the business of the government to interfere under the present circumstances I am not prepared to say, but I am prepared to say that I have not formed any conclusion in favour of any such interference at the present time.


TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION.
Robert Laird Borden: Mr. Speaker, before the Orders of the Day are called, I would like to ask the government whether or not there is any information which could be given to the House in regard to the formation of the proposed transportation commission. It was announced, I do not know with what authority, some time ago in the press that Sir Wm. Van Horne had definitely declined to accept the position of chairman of this commission. Perhaps the right hon. leader of the government would let us know as to that, and if so, what is the position of the matter at the present time ?


The PRIME MINISTER (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier).: I have a letter from Sir Wm. Van Horne on this subject, which I will be very happy to bring down tomorrow.


STEAMER ' SCOTIA '-CLAIM RE ' SALVAGE.
The MINISTER OF JUSTICE (Hon. Charles Fitzpatrick).: Mr. Speaker, during my absence last evening, reference was made to a case of some importance. I refer to the case of the steamer * Scotia ' in connection with certain salvage services which were rendered by the Anchor Line steamer ' Furnessia.' I deem the matter of sufficient importance to make a special statement of the government's connection
[DOT] [DOT] \


Mr.   J@: Todd, of New York, representing the Anchor Line, called to see me to-day, and we discussed very fully the situation with regard to these proceedings. He agreed with me that It would probably be useless to sue the insurers or builders while the present judgment of the supreme court of Newfoundland, holding the Crown exempt from salvage charges remains in force, and we also agreed that negotiations with the insurers under present conditions would probably not be hopeful. I told Mr. Todid that the government, except for its guarantees from the insurers and builders would not have raised the question as to exemption of Crown property from payment for salvage services, but would no doubt have submitted to the jurisdiction of the court and paid
whatever amount might finally have been awarded for these services, and that the Crown wias practically forced into the position which it has taken by reason of the attitude of the insurers, who set up our exemption and refused to admit our claim for damages. We agreed, therefore, that Mr. Todd should recommend the company to proceed with the appeal and have it brought on for hearing if possible early in July. I stated on the part of the government that we would appear and submit the facts as they stand to the court, stating as above that we set up the point of exemption to protect ourselves as against the insurers. If the company succeed on the appeal, of course we will have to pay the company for the salvage services, and afterwards have our recourse against the insurers or builders. If the Crown succeeds upon the appeal it will still be open for the company to make such representations for the consideration of the government as it may be advised with a view to obtaining indemnity upon the merits of the case. Meantime a letter is to be written to the English solicitors who have charge of the claim against the insurers, instructing them to notify the insurers that the appeal will go on unless they make a satisfactory settlement ; that the Crown as a defence would admit the salvors' claim and pay such amount as might be adjudged ; that in the circumstances we hope that the insurers will abandon the claim that the Crown is exempt and agree to the (payment of reasonable damages. Otherwise that while looking to them, not only for the damages, but also the costs which we may have to pay as the res,tilts of the litigation. Our solicitors are to be instructed to effect a settlement with the insurers with the concurrence of the salvors if possible. and to report the result of their negotiations. but in the absence of any agreement with the insurers the appeal is to proceed.
There the matter stands at the present time.


INSPECTION AND SALE OF SEEDS.
[Stage Direction]
House again in committee on Bill jNo. 200) respecting the Inspection and Sale of Seeds.-The Minister of Agriculture.
On section 4.
The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE (Hon. Sydney Fisher).: When this Bill was in committee before, it was the subject of a good deal of discussion in general as well as in detail, and there were suggestions from both sides of the House with regard to its provisions. On its first introduction, I pointed out that I was not wedded by any means to the details, and that I would be very glad to receive suggestions and to see if these suggestions could be incorporated in the Bill without marring any of its essential principles. As a result of that discussion and consideration of it, I intend to submit certain amendments which I may read together as they are more or less dependent the one upon the other. Section 1, of the Bill provides that it shall come into force the 1st day of September this year, and I propose to substitute for that the 1st day of July next year. This will give those who are engaged in the seed trade an opportunity of disposing of the seeds which

they have on hand, which they purchased not knowing that there would be such a law as this. It will also he time enough to bring about the improvement in the sale of seeds for next year. Then I would propose that in clause 3 the word ' vegetables ' should be struck out. I believe that in the future the trade in seeds of vegetables and flowers will have to come under the operation of an Act similiar to this by the demand of the people themselves ; but, at the present time it is possible that greater difficulties might arise in dealing with the trade in these seeds than those which we encounter in dealing with the trade in ordinary agricultural seeds. The menace to agriculture is much greater from the present position of trade in ordinary agricultural seeds than it is from the condition of trade in vegetable or garden seeds. I am therefore going to propose that the word ' vegetable ' be struck out of section 3, which would remove that difficulty from the Bill.
Then, I think it would be best that section 4 should not apply to export trade. I therefore propose to introduce into the second line of that section, after the word ' sale,' the words ' for the purpose of seeding in the Dominion of Canada.' That would make the provisions of the section, in regard to the marking and grading of seeds, not applicable to seeds intended for export. I think that eventually, in the course of a little time, it will be requisite to make that clause of the Act and those dependent upon it apply to the export trade as well as the home trade; but, as I have always wished, in dealing with this Bill, to proceed slowly, and to make the improvements step by step, I am disposed to meet the objection raised in regard to that point and to provide that section 4 shall only apply, for the present at afiy rate, to the home trade.
I would like to deal in section 6 with another exemption or partial exemption to the provisions of this Act. A good deal of discussion arose in regard to a supposed transaction between two farmers in a neighbourhood, one of whom raises an ordinary crop of seeds and sells it to his neighbour, as farmers frequently do. There was a very evident desire expressed by many members of the House that the provisions of the Act should not apply to such a transaction. Some members, however, believed that they should. I confess that I think the principles of the Act should apply to a transaction of that kind. But if there are difficulties in the way, which would prevent the proper enforcement of the Act without great hardship, I would be glad to adopt any amendment that would meet that case. I asked the hon. gentlemen who engaged in the former discussion to suggest an amendment for that purpose. No practical suggestion, I think, was then made; but after thinking over the matter and discussing it with my officers, I have a suggestion to make which I think will perhaps accomplish Hon. Mr. FISHER.
the object in view and at the same time not make the Act inoperative. 1 am going to propose an additional subsection as subsection ' e ' to section 6, providing that the Act shall not apply :
Or to seed that is grown and sown by any farmer on his own premises unless the purchaser of such seed demands from the seller at the time of the sale thereof that the said seed be supplied to him subject to the provisions of this Act.
That would leave on the purchaser the onus of requiring that the transaction should be subject to the provisions of this Act. If the purchaser wishes the transaction to be subject to the provisions of this Act, he can require it; if he does not so require it, then the provisions of the Act will not apply to the transaction, and nobody else can attack the seller, even though the seeds and the package in which they were placed might not fulfil the provisions of this Act. I think that meets the views of those gentlemen who thought the Act was too severe upon farmers who sold seeds to their neighbours, while at the same time it puts into the hands of the purchaser the privilege, if he chooses to exercise it, of having the provisions of this Act applied to the transaction. It seems to me to be a solution of the difficulty pointed out as possible to occur, and at the same time complies with the spirit and the general principle of the Act.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Suppose the purchaser said to the seller, I wish to get from you No. 1 red clover, and purchased accordingly, and said nothing about other provisions of the Act. Would not that bring the transaction under this Act ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: If the purchaser wished to avail himself of this section, he would have to do so, and then every provision of the Act would apply. It is not intended that the purchaser should be able to apply one provision of the Act and not another. If the purchaser wished the transaction to be subject to the provisions of the Act he would have to say so at the time of the transaction. If he did say so, then the whole transaction would be subject to the provisions of the Act. If he did not make that stipulation at the time of the purchase, the provisions of the Act would not apply, and the seller of the seeds would not be liable to be prosecuted under the Act. That, I believe, to be a fair and equitable solution of the difficulty suggested.


Mr. CLANCY.: That applies to all classes of seeds ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Yes. Of course there are some provisions of the Act which apply to some seeds and others to other seeds ; but that would not change these provisions. The next difficulty that arose was in connection with section 7. Exception was taken to the amount of the fine, and the suggestion was made that there ought to be separate fines

-one for the first offence and the other for second and subsequent offences. That seemed to be reasonable, and I propose to substitute in place of section 7 a section providing a fine jiot exceeding $25 and not less than $5 for the first offence, and not exceeding $50 and not less than $10 for the second offence, together with the costs of the prosecution. Objection was taken on the part of the wholesale dealers that they might be held liable for the contents of the package after it had gone into the hands of the retailer or any other person and its contents had been tampered with. To avoid any such possibility, I am proposing a clause providing that the package shall be sealed, and as long as the seal is unbroken the party who sold it shall be liable for the contents. If it should be broken, he may be still held liable, provided that, in the presence of two disinterested witnesses, a sample of the contents is put into another sealed package.


Mr. GILMOUR.: What is to prevent the duplicating of the seal ? Are you providing for that contingency ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I have not thought of that. That would probably be an infringement of the Trades Marks Act. Some provision would be necessary to complete the protection given the seller.


Mr. STEPHENS.: How is a retail merchant going to get samples without breaking the seal ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: When the seal is broken, the wholesale dealer is no longer responsible, but the retail merchant may take a sample from the bag and put it into another receptacle under seal, in the presence of two disinterested witnesses, and the contents of the bag would be judged by this sample. I propose to amend section 12 to meet the objections of the seed merchants, who seem to think it is not clear enough. This section provides for samples to be sent within seven days to any official analyst of seeds, taken from any seeds which are found or suspected to be sold in violation of the provisions of this Act. Section 15 provides that one-half of the pecuniary penalty shall be payable to the informant or the complainant. This section was struck out by the committee, and I would suggest that in its place the following section be inserted
Any pecuniary penalty imposed under this Act shall when recovered be payable one half to the imformant when such informant or complainant is the purchaser of the seed with respect to which the penalty is imposed, in all other cases the whole penalty shall be payable to His Majesty.


James Gilmour: A man may purchase a very small quantity merely in order that he may be in a position to prosecute and realize half the fine.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Such a case might occur. But, if the sale has really been made, I think the penalty ought to be inflicted. A man buys a small quantity of seed, say even eight or ten pounds of clover or timothy, and he finds afterwards that the seed is not what it is purported to be. It is very considerable trouble to him, and often very considerable expense, to prosecute. The ordinary individual has not a sufficiently high sense of public duty to prosecute. But if we throw upon the purchaser the onus and responsibility of prosecuting I think that when a man renders such a public service, it is only fair that he should have a portion of the result.


James Gilmour: I think the intention is good, and it would be all right in the case of a legitimate buyer that the person who prosecutes should receive half the fine. But the hon. minister will admit that under the section as he proposes it a person might buy a very small quantity, and, on the strength of the purchase, prosecute and secure half the fine.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I understand that, yet I do not see how we can discriminate between one purchaser and another. But this clause is to prevent third parties prosecuting. A farmer might purchase seed and not wish to prosecute, and a third party, through malice or through hope of pecuniary advantage, might enter an action without any personal interest in the transaction at all. I wish to prevent that. I find that section 17, which provides for an appeal is not necessary, for the provisions of the Summary Convictions Act will apply. And, as it is not necessary, its presence in the Bill might involve technical legal difficulties. I shall, therefore, propose to strike out section 17. These are the amendments, that, after careful consideration of the arguments advanced in a former discussion, commend themselves to my mind, and I think their adoption will make the Bill as perfect as it is possible to make in a first attempt in legislation of this kind. When the Bill was up for discussion before, I took occasion to say that we had in the committee the hon. member for Hamilton (Mr. Bruce) who has had much experience in this trade, and I trusted that before the passage of the Bill the committee would have the advantage of his advice and assistance in discussing it. I hope he will give the committee his views, as he did when he presented a deputation of the seedsmen to myself as minister in charge of the Bill. If a general discussion is desired, I would ask hon. members to proceed, and then we can take up the clauses.


Mr. BELL.: I should suppose the minister would leave the matter for a day or two until the members of the committee have had an opportunity to look into the amendments he has suggested. I- understand that

It is not in accordance with the usual procedure of the House that such amendments should be proceeded with until after reasonable notice; and while I would not be disposed to insist upon that in opposition to the hon. minister's wish, I must confess that I find it difficult to follow the amendments as read, because of the difficulty of hearing liim. I think members will be glad to consider the amendments as they will find them in ' Hansard ' to-morrow before attempting to proceed with them in detail.


The MINISTER OP AGRICULTURE.: It will perhaps be better to proceed with the general discussion, and some explanations may be called for. My bon. friend from East Grey (Mr. Sproule) did ask an explanation which I asked leave to postpone until I had gone through the amendments. I think it would be well to have a discussion before we proceed, as the hon. member for Pictou (Mr. Bell) sugests.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I referred to the faet that we make a time limit, which, I take it, involves the putting of a1 date on the seal. If the time limit is near expiring and the seed were sold to an innocent party-as the Minister of Agriculture is engaged at this moment, I shall wait until he can give me his attention.


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER.: As the hon. minister has gone through the amendments he proposes, I think we should take the Bill up section by section and consider the amendments as they arise ? If it is desired that further time should be given on any particular amendment, the discussion of the clause to which it relates can be postponed. In this way, we shall make some progress, but, with a general discussion we shall make no progress.


Mr. TAYLOR.: The hon. minister's amendments are more important than the Bill, It would be better to have them reprinted, so that hon. members can consider them before taking up the discussion.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I was merely responding to the invitation of the minister, who intimated that it would be proper for me to refer now to the matter I mentioned, which was this:	When the seal is put on, there
must be a date, because the amendment proposes that the guarantee shall be good only for a certain length of time. If the seed passes into the hands of an innocent party about the time of the expiry of the guarantee he would practically not have any guarantee whatever.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: The hon. member spoke about the date. The date must be on the seal but the object of providing that in no case shall the responsibility for such seed extend beyond ninety days of the sale thereof, which date must be plainly marked on the package or bag which contains the seed, is, that some seeds deteriorate in ninety days. That is the Mr. BELL,
case with a good many seeds, but not with all by any means. Many seeds will last much longer. That is the object of making the time ninety days.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: We will suppose that a seedsman got an order for certain seeds, and the wholesale man had them on hand, but the time of that warrantee had about expired, lacking a few days.* He sold those seeds, but they did not reach the consignee until after the expiry of that time, and when he received those seeds he found they were not up to the standard, who would be responsible then? The action had not been commenced within the 90 days, and his warrantee expired by the effluxion of time.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: That is a legal point that I would not like to give an opinion upon. There are many cases in Acts where a delay is fixed, and in those cases the point has to be taken up from a legal point of view.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The object in making a law is to avoid any of these technicalities that might result in litigation. It seems to me it would be possible to provide that when any person sold seeds under a warrantee, he should be held responsible for them after the time had expired before they reached the consignee.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: The purchaser knows what the date of sealing was. Tbe date has to be put upon the package, and he knows what the provisions of the Act are, and therefore he knows that within a certain delay he has certain rights. After that delay has passed those rights cease.


George Taylor: I would like the minister to explain what kind of seeds will deteriorate in 90 days.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I am informed by those who have studied this matter more than myself, that hulled timothy seed cannot be counted upon after 90 days-timothy seed that has lost its hull.


George Taylor: I have kept timothy seed over two or three years, and it was just as good as at the begininng. I have often had it in store for two or three years. I am satisfied that timothy seed, if kept in a dry place, and unless it gets damaged by moisture, is just as good at the end of twelve months as when it is first threshed.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I think the hon. gentleman would have found, if he had had that seed tested by a seed analyst, that it had steadily deteriorated and was getting poorer every year.
air. TAYLOR. When it was sowed the result was just as good.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Any results he would observe in a field

in a particular case, would be far too inaccurate and unsatisfactory to lead to a general conclusion.


Mr. McCREARY.: Ill regard to this Bill,
I regret to say that I was not in the House the other day when the Minister of Agriculture gave his explanations, I was otherwise engaged. I have not heard either his explanations given this afternoon. However, as I read the Bill cursorily, it seems to me that it is going to have a peculiar effect in our western country. For instance, clause 3 says :
No person shall sell, or offer, expose or have in his possession for sale, for the purpose of seeding, any seeds of cereals, grasses, clovers- &c., having in the packages or hags any seed of wild mustard, Russian thistle and so forth. If he does so, he is subject to a penalty running from $10 to $100. Clause 9 says that any person may go on to a farmer's premises and if lie finds any of these seeds in his sacks or bags he may bring an action and fine him $100, and get half the fine. Now, I do not believe this will work in the western portion of the country especially. It seems to me it simply means this, that if a farmer wants to change his seed, as he frequently does, and he sends to Winnipeg and buys a carload of seed, if it contains any mustard seed or any other of these seeds mentioned here, he can be fined $100. If that is the meaning of this Act, then I may say it may apply to some isolated state of affairs that may exist in some little five-acre lot where they pick the wheat out by hand, but on the prairies it means that every farmer that sells seed out there will be subject to a penalty, not a single one would escape. The idea is just about as impracticable as the one passed a few days ago about marking butter. It seems we have a lot of theorists, men running experimental farms, faddists, men who would starve on a farm of their own, and they are evolving out of their own brains some ideal state of affairs that should exist, and thev are trying to make use of this House to put it into law. The consequence is that the law remains on the statute-book without being obeyed, a dead letter, a fraud upon the public. After a while the farmers will kick and the law is repealed. Now, I merely ask the minister if the idea of this Act is that if any farmer sells seed one bag or a hundred bags, and which are found to have a few grains of mustard seed in it, he can be fined $100 at the instance of any neighbour of his, or informer who may be found around his premises. If some man who has a spite against him knows he has got 100 bushels of wheat for sale, all he has to do is to go into his barn and take one of these sacks and find a little mustard seed or Russian thistle in it, and fine him $100 and get half the fine. If that is so, then this Bill had better be stopped at once.


Peter Macdonald: I must remind the committee that this whole discussion is out of order, there is nothing before the Chair. I would ask the minister to tell me what is the proposition now before the committee. There is no progress being made at all.


Samuel Hughes: The government benches are obstructing.


Peter Macdonald: After the minister gave an expose of the proposition which he intended to bring before the House in connection with this particular Bill, it is then the duty of the committee to take up the Bill section by section and apply the amendments proposed by the minister. But this general discussion, when there is no question before the committee at all, is wholly out of order, and I have no more control of the committee than if I were 100 miles away. Unless I am overruled by the committee, as I generally am when I am right, I would rule that this discussion is out of order. We will have to commence first by a motion to reopen all the sections which have al-readv been carried, that is, every section of the Bill with the exception of three. This discussion is on sections which have already been passed on by the committee. After a motion is carried to reconsider what we have done already, then it will be in order to more these proposed amendments to each section as we go on, and then we will be making some progress.
Mr. SPROUT,E. Might I remind you, Mr. Chairman, that the hon. minister referred to several amendments which he intended to propose to the Bill, and he asked for a general discussion upon them ? It was in following out the suggestion that we were endeavouring to refer to these various amendments.


Peter Macdonald: Ministers are human like the rest of us, and they are sometimes out of order like the rest of us. Therefore, I am calling the minister's attention to the rule of order. I have put about two hundred Bills through my hands this session, and there has not been one that has been put through in this irregular way.
The MINISTER OF AGRICRULTURE moved
That section two be amended by striking out the words ' first day of September, nineteen hundred and three ' and inserting in lieu thereof the words ' first day of July, nineteen hundred and four.'


William Forsythe McCreary: Will this be on the understanding that we are to reconsider the entire sections of the Bill 1 Will the hon. minister give us that assurance, or will we have a discussion of the Bill 6n this question ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Subject to your ruling, Mr. Chairman, I

suppose that if the Bill is to go into force on a certain day the whole of the Bill might be discussed as to the advisability of its going into force on that day.


Mr. HEYD.: Mr. Chairman, I suppose I am in order now. I need hardly say that in this Bill there is the promise of a great deal of good to the farmers of this country, but I am satisfied In the House we have not amongst us the commercial experience necessary to make this Bill perfect. I have been approached when at home toy the retailers of seeds, who say that they have not had an opportunity of expressing their views, and that in the amendments which have been suggested by the wholesale trade they have relieved themselves of a certain share of responsibility by shouldering it off upon the retail dealers. One of the largest retail dealers told me that rather than carry on the seed business under the Bill as proposed to the House, he would go out of business. I would suggest, in the interests of the farmers at large, that we should perfect this Bill as far as we are able and then let it go to the various agricultural societies, retail dealers' associations and wholesale dealers in seeds, and let them consider it and suggest amendments. After that we will be in possession of such an array of facts as will enable us to perfect a Bill which will be of use to the country. We all know the injury that is being inflicted through the sale of impure seeds. I am satisfied that the lion. Minister of Agriculture has the welfare of the agricultural community at heart in bringing forward this Bill, but a Bill so far-reaching in its consequences ought to be considered with reference to the trade it affects, and especially with reference to the interests of the farmer who grows seed and grows it for the purpose of selling it. I do not think we have that commercial knowledge of the seed business which will enable us to perfect a Bill that will be just in all its particulars to every class of the community, and therefore I say that we should try to perfect this Bill, to adopt the suggestions that are made by the hou. minister, who has given a great deal of care to it, and then leave it to be further considered by the wholesale trade, the retail trade and the farmers, and give them an opportunity for making suggestions in regard to it, so that when we come to consider it next year we will toe able to perfect a Bill that will be applicable to all classes of the community and that will operate for the welfare of the country.


Mr. BRUCE.: Mr. Chairman, I was going to make the suggestion that has been made by the hon. member for South Brant (Mr. Heyd) in regard to this Bill.
I do not think that the farming community or the seedsmen of the country, those who handle and do nothing else, are sufficiently familiar with the provisions of the measure to understand


Hon. Mr. FISHER.: them properly. The seedsmen and farmers are entirely with the hon. minister in his desire to improve the quality of the seed production of Canada. We are all much interested in bringing about this result as he is, and we will do everything we possibly can to achieve the object w'hich he expects to result from this Bill. But we have not yet had sufficient time to consider the Bill or to understand how it would operate as a mercantile measure. I would suggest that the hon. minister should continue the work of educating the farmers at the institute meetings which has been going on for some years past, and he might possibly also issue a bulletin giving his views in regard to the intended legislation that we are considering here to-day. During the recess the seedsmen of the country and the experts of the Department of Agriculture might consider the Bill and agree upon such provisions as would not be an injury to the farmers or interfere too much with the seedsmen in the management of their business. I understand perfectly well that it is not the intention of the hon. minister to inflict any hardship upon either the farmers or the seedsmen, and if time were given for the consideration of the matter between now and the next meeting of the House. I think a Bill might be brought in that would be of service to the country, and which would realize the expectations of the hon. minister in regard to our seed product.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I took a copy of this Bill home and submitted it to one of our seedsmen, and the conclusion he reached was very much the same as that of the seedsman to whom the hon. member for South Brant (Mr. Heyd) referred, that if this Bill became law' he would have to go out of business, because he thought it quite impossible to carry on his business and keep within the provisions of the law. He said that the law' must either be a dead letter or there must toe constant and repeated violation of it, which no seedsman would desire to have. The opinion I expressed when the Bill was first proposed, and the opinion which I hold still, is that unless the Bill is very much amended it w'ill be utterly impossible for any seedsman to carry on his business without finding himself in trouble and liable to prosecution.


Mr.   DRIVER@: It seems to me that the proposition of the hon. minister, which, if I understand it aright, is to postpone the effect of the Bill for another year, meets all the arguments that have been put forward.


Mr. COCHRANE.: No.


Mr. OLIVER.: It must be taken for granted that the hon. minister and the department have given the matter some expert attention, and that the Bill in its present shape has certainly the principle to commend it, and that there is valuable information as to details. At the same time,

we can all recognize that it is a Bill of very far-reacliing effect, and that probably it would not be well for it to go into effect without everybody having a say m regard to it. If the Bill is not to go into effect until after the next session of parliament, then the best way to call the attention of the people of Canada to it is to put it on the statute-book. I strongly support the Bill, with the amendment proposed by the Minister of Agriculture.
Hon. Mr. ROSS (Victoria, N.S.) This Bill will not come into operation before the first of July, 1904, and why should we be in a hurry to pass it at all this session. Let it be circulated so that those who are interested in it may understand it thoroughly, and then next session we will be able to consider the objections offered to it and will be in a position to pass a better Bill. Among the many faults we have in this House, one is that we pass too much legislation on subjects that might as well be left alone to regulate themselves.


George Taylor: If this Bill is to pass, the word ' person ' should be struck out and the word ' dealer ' inserted. We know it to be a fact that farmers in the North-west and in all parts of the country keep oats, barley, and wheat, for seeding purposes, and give them to their neighbours. If a farmer has any such weed as mustard in his crop and if he sells the seed to his neighbour he is liable to be prosecuted under this Bill. In fact if the Bill passes no one dare sell his neighbour a bushel of oats or any other grain if he had a noxious weed in his fields, and you will hardly get a farm in Ontario that "will not show some of the weeds mentioned in the Act. If you pass the Bill at all it should apply to dealers only and not to farmers.


Frank Oliver: If it be true as the hon. member for Leeds says that every farm in Ontario is flooded with weeds, then it is a strong argument in favour of this Bill, the principle of which is to check the evil of weeds in our cultivated lands.


Matthew Henry Cochrane: This Bill does not come into force until after next session, and it is much better that we should hold it over and make whatever amendments we think are desirable then rather than to pass it now and amend it afterwards. If we hold it over and pass all its provisions at once without amendment then it will be plain so that ordinary mortals may understand it.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: The question arises whether we should make this Bill law this year or leave it oyer until next session, but in either case it is much better that we should try to make the Bill as perfect as possible, now that it is before the House. My hon. friend from Brant suggested that we should discuss it and then submit it to farmers institutes and agricultural meetings. If it does not become law this year it ought to be so submitted, but if it is to be submitted it ought be submitted in as perfect a shape as possible. We are legislating here on a new subject and one which I know involves great difficulty, but we have been able to legislate successfully on new subjects in the past and there is no reason why we should not do so in this case. The hon. gentleman from Leeds says that the amendments amount to as much as the whole Bill. That is not the case, but even if it were it would be no objection to the measure. What I want to find, and what the majority of this committee want to find is a solution of the difficulties which the farmers of Canada now labour under in their purchase of seeds for seeding purposes. This committee has almost unanimously accepted the principle of the Bill, and if it is desirable that such a Bill should become law then the condition of affairs in the country is acknowledged to be such that the time is ripe for its enactment. My hon. friend from Hamilton said that the seed dealers who think that they are more aimed at in this Bill than any one else, are quite prepared to acknowledge the principle of this Bill, and the hon. gentleman (Mr. Taylor) said that the Bill should be limited to dealers. I may say that the dealers already think that the Bill almost aims exclusively at them. I do not think that is the case, but their view has to be taken into consideration. My hon. friend from Selkirk (Mr. McCreary) has attacked the Bill on very broad grounds and he has said that it is entirely unworkable especially in the North-west Territories. My hon. friend is not aware probably that in the North-west Territories there is local legislation which is far more strict than the provisions of this Bill.


William Forsythe McCreary: It is not carried out.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: It may not be carried out for the benefit of the people, but, nevertheless the representatives of the people have adopted such legislation. If the hon. gentleman is surprised at it, it is simply because he has not taken the trouble to study the question, and has made statements to the House without knowing the details of the question he has been talking about. The hon. gentleman may be perfectly right in what he says. It may be that this Bill is unworkable in the North-west Territories ; but the representatives of the people elected in the Northwest Territories believe that more drastic legislation is necessary, and I suppose that when they put it on the statute-book, they believed that it was workable, and in the interest of the people of the North-west Territories. I do not know the North-west Territories and Manitoba as well as the hon. gentleman does ; but I do know them well enough to know that if there is any part of the Dominion of Canada that requires

legislation with regard to the purity of seeds and the destruction of weeds, it is Manitoba and the North-west Territories. But the provisions of this Bill have been, as my hon. friend from Alberta says, the subject of the utmost consideration and investigation, not only by myself as minister, but by the experts employed in my department to deal especially with this subject. I may say that the provisions of this Bill, as it stands to-day, are not nearly as drastic and stringent as the condition of affairs in the country would lead us to believe would be advisable ; but I understand perfectly well that what is advisable may not be feasible, and that we have to creep before we can run ; and therefore we are obliged to minimize the restrictive character of the Bill to such an extent that it may be fairly workable and may attain the objects we have in view. It is for that reason that I decided to-day to propose certain amendments to the Bill, and I would be glad to have the co-operation and assistance of the committee on each amendment.


William Forsythe McCreary: With regard to the ordinance which the hon. minister says is on the statute-book of the North-west Territories, I have not seen such an ordinance. If there is such an ordinance, it certainly has never been observed since the day it was passed; because there is not a farmer in Manitoba or the North-west Territories who could carry out the provisions of section 3 of this Act. If the North-west legislature was foolish enough to put on the statute-book an Act which could never be carried out, I hope we are not foolish enough to repeat that Act in this House. In the Northwest Territories, in Manitoba, in Minnesota, in Dakota, or in any of the other states which produce large quantities of grain, such an Act could not possibly be enforced. If the minister wants to suit the farmers, let this Act be considered by them. If he wants to suit the seed dealers, he is quite right to pass such legislation. For instance, if section 3. which provides that no person shall seli seeds unless they are entirely free from the seeds of the weeds named in the section, were modified to say that they shall contain not more than 10 per cent or 5 per cent or some other per centage of these seeds, it might to a certain extent be workable. The hon. gentleman also wants to take into consideration the fact that when a farmer buys his seed, he usually puts it through a process of blue-stoning before he puts it into the ground, and provision might be made for imposing that duty on the seller of the seed as well. The minister before passing this Act, should consult the farmers of the prairies as well as the seed dealers of the east. As the Bill stands, it would be a grass hardship on the farmers of the west. It would i>ut the farmer into the hands of some unprincipled scoundrel, who could go into his granary and pick some of these Hon. Mr. FISHER.
deleterious seeds out of his stock, and then have him hauled up and fined $100, and, if he did not pay the fine, have him sent to jail ; and, if the farmer wanted to put the man out of his granary, he might subject himself to another fine of $500. I submit that the clause giving the informer the power to enforce the penalty is wrong. That should be put into the hands of a government official, who would not get any part of the fine. 'There is scarcely a police magistrate who does not reflect severely on the character of whiskey informers, and these informers would be in the same category. If the minister is going to enforce the Bill or bring it up again next session, I think it should be modified in the ways I have suggested.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: My hon. friend evidently has not studied tlie Bill or listened to what I have said this afternoon. He. says the Bill has not been submitted to the farmers of the Northwest Territories. The details of the Bill of course have not been submitted to them, but the question the Bill deals with was brought up and discussed last winter at every institute held in the North-west Territories. With regard to the farmer selling seed to another farmer, the amendment which I read to the House to-day, providing that the provisions of this Act shall not apply to such a transaction unless the purchaser at the time requires that it shall be subject to the provisions of the Act, meets that case; so that if two neighbours wish to sell seed to each other without being subject to the provisions of this Act, they can do so. The hon. gentleman also objected to the informer getting a portion of the fine. That also is proposed to be modified. That section of the Bill was struck out at the previous meeting of the committee, but I propose to insert in place of it another section providing that when such Informant is the purchaser of the seed with respect to which the penalty is imposed, then and then only shall he get one-half of the penalty. A person who is not the purchaser would have no chance of getting any portion of the penalty ; but the man who has suffered a wrong, and who takes the trouble, not to right his own wrong, but to do a service to the community, ought to have something for the public service he has rendered. He ought to have a portion of the fine to reimburse him for the trouble he has taken, in a public spirited way-because probably the wrong he has suffered does not amount to much-to put a stop to the selling of inferior seed.


Mr. ROBINSON (Elgin).: I do not think that much harm will result if the Bill be allowed to stand over another year. Let copies be sent to the farmers institutes and
farmers' associations and the grangers, and we will then next session know what the farmers think of it. There is no great hurry for the Bill. We have lived all these years

without it, and can get along without it another year.


Mr. LENNOX.: X approve of the hon. minister's present intention of not putting the Bill into force this year. But I would go further still and let the discussion stand over until next session. I do not think that the public mind mind has been directed to this matter to any great extent. No doubt the hon. minister has given it a good deal of thought and has an honest desire to provide a remedy for what he considers a grievance, but nevertheless it seems to me, as I said the other day, that we are erring on the side of too much legislation and do not recognize the ability of our people to regulate many of these matters themselves. There is very good reason why we should defer further consideration of this measure. I understand the government to say that they are exceedingly anxious to get certain important measures before the House without delay ; and if we go into a discussion of tnis matter, we will be putting an obstacle in the way of progress. There is another and a more serious difficulty.
. If this Bill is persisted in, I fear we will witness another of those ruptures which are becoming alarmingly frequent this session. It is evident that we are on the verge of an unfortunate friction between the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. McCreary) and the hon. Minister of Agriculture, I would deeply regret that anything of the kind should occur at this juncture. The government is already sufficiently embarrassed without having the further embarrassment of one of its ministers being attacked by a prospective minister. We can make every allowance for the language used by the hon. member for Selkirk with regard to the hon. minister, because he has just come from a scene of agitation and disappointment and finds it difficult to restrain his feelings. As to the fitness of the language, I have nothing to say.


Mr. WRIGHT.: Has this anything to do with clause 2 ?


Peter Macdonald: No, it has not.


Haughton Lennox: I hope that I shall keep myself within the rules of the House. I wish simply to express my sincere hope that at the present juncture, when the friction now existing among hon. members opposite, both in the cabinet and out of it, threatens to bring about such a state of things that we may have no administration at all, the hon. minister will see the advisability of not pressing this measure. Speaking in all earnestness, I believe that it is not in the interest of the seedsmen or farmers that we should commit ourselves to any definite policy such as is laid down in this Bill. The matter, having been brought to the attention of the public, should be allowed to stand over until another session, when it
can be put into such shape that it will be more likely to give general satisfaction and probably, by the time another session comes around, the hon. minister will be relieved from the responsibilities of office and not have to father the measure at all.


Mr. MACLAREN (Huntingdon).: I represent a rural constituency, Mr. Chairman, and there are some things in connection with this debate which I find rather puzzling. I have always been under the impression that the farmer raised the seed which he sold the dealer. We have some noxious weeds in our county; and while I am as much the friend of the farmer as anybody else, I fail to understand why, if you do not punish the farmer who raised the dirty seed and sells it to the dealer, you should punish the dealer for selling this dirty seed furnished him by the farmer.


Francis Carmichael Bruce: The seedsmen of Canada are not asking for this legislation, but as the hon. Minister of Agriculture has introduced the Bill, we desire to see it passed in such a shape that it will be as little harmful as possible both to the farmers and seedsmen. To show you, Sir, that the country is not suffering to any alarming extent I shall take the liberty of reading some remarks which Dr. Saunders made when giving his evidence before the Agricultural Committee on the 12th of June. Dr. Saunders stated that 131 samples of clover seed which he tested averaged seventy-five per cent in germinating power, and seventy-five samples of timothy seed averaged eighty-three percent ; showing that in these important and staple seeds, although we may meet with an occasional poor sample, the Canadian seedsmen have supplied farmers with a very reliable quality of the seed, and that most of the samples have been remarkably clean. This shows that we are not likely to have any greater difficulty with regard to weeds than we have had, heretofore and that the country will not suffer if we allow the Bill to stand over until the farmers and seedsmen understand it better and are better able to suggest the changes necessary to make it effective.


Frank Oliver: I am very sorry to have to disagree with my hon. friend from Elgin regarding the urgency of the case. There seems to be a general impression that this is not an important matter, that it is not a matter of urgency, and that because we have not had such legislation in the past, we do not need it in the future. No man can travel through Ontario in any direction without seeing evidence of the necessity of something being done to get rid of weeds. I am satisfied that this province loses hundreds of thousands of dollars per year because of me prevalence of noxious weeds. I do not think that there is any question coming before the parliament that is more important than the question of weeds in the farmers' grain.

III the North-west, in the district in which I live, I can assure the committee the farmers have suffered damage to the amount of thousands and thousands of dollars by reason of buying grain which contained the seeds of weeds. Now, it is true the country will not burn up if we do not pass legislation on the subject this year. It is also true that the legislation we may pass may not be effective for the purpose designed. But I do submit that we have to make a start some time if we are ever going to reach an end. Apparently, these weeds will not kill themselves ; apparently people will not cease trading in impure seeds, unless legislation and administration is made effective against such conduct. Well, if we are going to commence some time what better time is there than now and how can we commence better than by affirming the principle of legislation against noxious weeds by passing this Bill at this session ? If there is any question as to the details of the Bill, as to the effect its provisions will have if put in force ; if there is any danger, in the opinion of any hon. gentleman, as to delaying the business of parliament, all that that hon. gentleman need do is to agree to the amendment proposed by the minister which will prevent the Bill from being effective for another year, and will give everybody warning that parliament is in favour of the principle of this legislation, and that all must be prepared to protect their own interest by the time parliament meets again. But if the Bill is set over for another session, the country will take it for granted- and I think will justly take it for granted- that parliament is not in favour of the principle of the Bill ; for they will say that if parliament was in favour of the principle it would have adopted it. but that having refused to adopt it it is not in favour of it; and everybody dealing in impure seed will rest easy. And so, next session we shall find ourselves exactly where we are this session, with the House not prepared and the people not informed. I say, in the interest of the farming community, the greatest in the country, it is most important that the principle of legislation against impure seed should be adopted at this session by the passing of this Bill with the amendment proposed by the minister bringing the Bill in force next year.
Mr. HEYl). If we carry out the wishes of the minister, we shall start next year where we leave off this year, but, if we leave this an open question for another year, everything that has been said during the past week in connection with the Bill will have to be talked over again. If we pass the Bill as the minister wishes, farmers ard dealers will have a live question before them, though it will be some time before the measure becomes operative. If we do not cary out his wishes, we must start again where we are now and all our labours will be lost.	;


Frank Oliver: *


Aaron Abel Wright: As a dealer in seeds for the last thirty-two years, I think I have the right to say something on the subject. If there is any question in this country that demands legislation, it is the selling of impure seeds. Our friends of the law may not be aware that last winter during three or four months, in the province of Ontario, at meeting of farmers' institute held in every section, the burden of the lectures was the fact that so many foul seeds are sold to the farmers in the grain which they buy for seed. At every one of these meetings a large chart was put up on the wall showing the places where seeds were purchased and the percentage of foul seeds in them. Every farmer present at the institute meeting, without a. single exception, said something should be done in the way of legislation in order to remedy the evil. So, I cannot see how any one can say in this House that the subject has not been before the farmers or that they have not had an opportunity to say anything about it. It is true they may not have come here with any one delegated to say these things for them, but it is a certain fact that the matter has been before them at every farmers' institute meeting, and with unanimous voice they have said that something should be done. If we do not take any action this session, all the trouble that we have been to and all me time that we have spent will be lost, and all the things that have been said here to-day and other days will have to be said next session. It is time we should settle down to work and see if we cannot get; a Bill into shape that it may be placed before the farmers' institute for discussion. Then, if there are changes to be made, we can make them. But for goodness sake let us do something, and not be staying here all the time talking.
Mr, ROSS (Ontario). The amendment is to provide that this Act shall not come into force until the 1st July, 1904. I 'think that in the previous debate in connection with the Bill, I expressed myself as believing that this measure should not come into force during this parliament, or, until next year at any rate. I think it would be wise to have it as a measure that might be legislated on at a future session, that it should practically serve as a notice of motion to the country that the matter was going to be dealt with by this parliament. The reasons advanced by the hon. member for South Brant (Mr. Heyd) I think, are extremely good-that the country may have notice during the next twelve months of what they may expect in connection with the seed Bill.
I scarcely think the hon. members of this House are aware of the enormous waste there is in this country owing to noxious weeds, not only in seeds, but in cereals of all kinds. I know that we have unloaded at our elevator No. 1 Manitoba hard wheat that has a very large percentage of weed seeds. I was really surprised to see it.
7229	JULY 23, 1903	7230
And I have been told by some who are engaged in the trade that there have been some remarkable turnouts of weed seeds in the shipments of Manitoba wheat. As the hon. member for Alberta (Mr. Oliver) has said, you have but to travel through the country on train to see hundreds and hundreds, even many thousands of acres of wild mustard spread before you. No one can deny that every spear of wild mustard is displacing a spear of wheat or other grain. The positive waste that is going on year after year in growing and gathering these seeds is incalculable. The province of Ontario to which I belong, has recognized this as an evil. They have declared that these noxious weeds shall not be grown on the highways or even on the fields. They give power, as I understand it, to municipalities to see to the enforcement of the law. The result is that the law is not enforced, but stands upon the statute-book practically a dead letter. If the Jbill now before us will meet the difficulty and lead to the production of a purer quality of seeds, it is of the utmost importance and in the right direction. But I believe with the hon. member for Brant and some other hon. members, that it would be better not to make a law now, but, as I say, to let this serve as a notice of motion for next session of parliament. We have a great competitor in the growing of seed in the country to the south of us. Sixty-five per cent, in round numbers of their exports, which amount to about $1,300,000,000 consists of the products of the farm. Of this, a large proportion is seeds, and the seeds grown in that country come in direct competition with the seeds grown in Canada.
We are the largest producers and exporters of aisike in the world. We are no small producers of red clover, and fairly large producers of timothy. These seeds are produced largely in the western states, in Wisconsin, Iowa, Minnesota, and I think. Indiana. They have, as I understand, no law regarding seeds.- Now, it strikes me that perhaps if we put too rigorous a law upon the trade of this country, which has been well developed by the seedsmen, it may affect our exportation of seeds out of the country. That is what appeals to (me. For myself, I have not sufficient information to form an opinion with regard to that matter, as to how we would meet the export trade of the United States in these seeds where we especially come into competition with them. Of course, we come into competition with them in our wheat, oats, barley, and those things, and also in seeds. A good many of the seeds imported into this country are used in Ontario. Under these circumstances. I can agree with the proposition which has been made by several hon. members here to-day fo let this Bill serve as a notice to the country that next year absolutely a Bill will come up for the purpose of regulating the seed
trade. In the meantime, let the farmers' institutes and dealers of all kinds be consulted in regard to it, and let them be told to suggest any amendments they choose. Another feature of the Bill that I do not agree with is that regarding the payment of the fine. It is repugnant to me that we should pass any Act here with a penalty clause which gives to the informant one-half or one-quarter of the fine, or any part of it. I thoroughly believe that all fines should go to the Crown, and that the Crown should itself enforce the Act. I know that a great many people have a serious objection to that mode of proceeding. The only department of the government where that principle may perhaps be justified, is the customs. There it may be necessary, but I say we should avoid as far as possible introducing that principle into any other Bill.


Mr. HALE.: I believe this Bill is in the right direction. I am sorry that I cannot agree with the last speaker (Mr. Ross, Ontario), who thinks the Bill should not become law now. If there is an evil in this country, as it is clear we have in this respect, where bad seed is being scattei'ed broadcast over the country, why should we allow the dealers another year to get rid of that seed by placing it on the market? I think the sooner this Bill becomes law the better, and I think it should be placed upon the statute-book this year.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Moved to amend section 4 by inserting after the word ' sale ' in the 22nd line, the words, ' for the purpose of seeding within the Dominion of Canada.'


Thomas Simpson Sproule: How are you going to establish that fact ? If a man has such seed, upon whom will rest the responsibility of showing that it is for the purpose of seeding in the Dominion of Canada?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: When he holds seed in his warehouse or place of business, it will be held to be for sale in the Dominion of Canada. If, however, it is exported, the bill of lading which he sends forward will show that it is for export and not for sale in the Dominion of Canada. Until he takes positive steps to export it, the seed will be held to be for sale in the Dominion of Canada.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: There were two amendments to be added to section 6. One of them, subsection (c), was carried the other day. Now, I propose another one as subsection (d), which is to meet the view expressed the other day that a farmer might desire to sell to his neighbour. This is to protect him in such transaction, but where the purchaser desires to have the provisions of the Act apply, he will have a right to express such

desire, and the provisions of the Act will apply.
Mi-. GILMOUR. I think he should ask in writing for the statutory seed.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I do not think we need imply in the law that it need be put in writing, but after being considered if it is thought necessary by tlie law department I will be glad to make such a provision.


James Gilmour: If a person is made liable to be fined, I think the evidence against him should be perfectly clear, that he contravened the law, and in this case it could only be made clear when one farmer had from the other a statement in writing that he had purchased statutory seed.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Suppose I buy seed by sample and it is said to be No. 1, or No. 2, or No. 3, I have obtained it under this Act because this is the only Act that describes what No. 1, No. 2 or No. 3 seed is. I find afterwards that the seed contains noxious weeds. I fall back upon the dealer and ask damages from him because he gave me seed that was not up to the standard. Well, he would set up the plea that it was not sold under this Act, although as a matter of fact, it was sold under this Act for grade.


Peter Macdonald: The hon. Minister of Agriculture proposes to amend section 0 by adding a subsection to be known as subsection (d) as follows :
Or to seed that, is grown and sold by any farmer on his own premises unless the purchaser of said seed demand's from the seller at the time of the sale thereof that the said seed he supplied to him subject to the provisions of this Act.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Suppose he buys it for No. 1, No. 2 or No. 3 it is subject to the provisions of this Act, and would he not be justified in setting up in court that it was bought under the provisions of this Act ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: 1 think he could very well do that, but some proviso may be added to this subsection as the following which I merely suggest off-hand :	' which fact should be expressed in a receipt given for the payment for the seed.' The intention of this clause is that the purchaser shall ask a stipulation that the seed is sold to him under the provisions of this Act. That is a positive Act on the part of the purchaser and without that positive Act, on the part of the purchaser the idea is that the seller would not be subject to the provisions of the Act. Then, as a proof that the purchaser made that stipulation he should require it to be acknowledged in the receipt for the payment of the grain, and if it was not so acknowledged in the receipt for payment, then there would be no proof that he made such a stipulation. That would be proof in writing and that would be proof in writing
Hon.. Mr. FISHER.
which the purchaser would hold as he would his receipt for the payment.


William Forsythe McCreary: You would make the seller give a certificate if the purchaser demanded it ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Yes, and if the purchaser did not make that stipulation at the time of the transaction, then, the seller would be free from all responsibility under the provisions of this Act.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I am very much afraid that would be difficult to carry out.


Mr. ROSS (Ontario).: I cannot see any difficulty in carrying out the intention of the hon. minister in connection with that matter. One farmer goes to another and says:
' I want to buy some seed.' The other asks:
' Do you want it for seeding purposes V 'Yes,' don't you know there is an Act governing the sale of grain for seed purposes ? Will you sell me seed that comes up to the requirements of the Act ?' 'Yes.' The bargain is made on that condition. 'Well' the purchaser says ' of course, you will give me a certificate to that effect'!' and the seller would say: 'Yes.' If the purchaser paid the seller .10 or 15 cents a bushel more for his grain because he required to use it for seed I should think he would have the right to get seed that would come under the provisions of the Act.


Mr. LANCASTER.: I would suggest to the hon. minister that it would be more practicable if he would insert the word 'obtains' in his amendment instead of the word * demands.' Otherwise we would be in this position that a farmer would say that he demanded a receipt but he would not have the benefit of getting it in writing. Unless lie had it in writing I do not think a case could be established. It is something like the law requiring the description of certain classes of merchandise to be in writing.
I refer to the statute of frauds. I do not think a person should be liable to the penalties of the Act unless it is conclusively shown that lie sold grain for seed purposes. The efficacy of the law would be taken away if there was no statement in writing, because the purchaser could come forward and say : It is true I got no writing. I have no evidence against this man in his own hand writing that he sold me this seed under tiiis Act; still, I am prepared to swear that I demanded it, and we would then be in the unfortunate position of having oath against oath. I think the hon. minister should put in the words ' unless he obtains,' because, if he does not obtain it he need not buy the seed. He should not buy the seed unless he obtains a receipt stating that the seed is sold under the provisions of the Act.
Mr. GILMOUR, Another way in which it could be made certain is by requiring that the farmer selling statutory seed should have tlie same mark on it that the merchant

is required to have who sells statutory seed. That would be proof positive.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: The amendment as it stands, I think, perhaps, would be a little more perfect if the change which my hon. friend from Lincoln (Mr. Lancaster) suggests were made and if the word ' obtains ' were substituted for the word ' demands,' and a change were made providing that a certificate should be supplied to the purchaser stating that the seed supplied to him was subject to the provisions of this Act. I propose that the amendment shall read as follows :
(a.) Or to seed that is grown and sold by any farmer on his own premises, unless the purchaser of siaid .seed obtains from the seller at the time of the sale thereof a certificate that the said seed be supplied to him subject to the provisions of this Act.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: My hon. friend from Ontario (Mr. Ross) asked on a previous occasion as to the effect of section (b) of clause 6, which, as printed, reads :
Any person selling seeds direct to merchants to be cleaned and graded before being offered for sale for the purposes of seeding.
The hon. gentleman (Mr. Ross) suggested that this would not protect the farmer who sold to a country merchant who did not intend to grade or clean the seed, but to sell it again to a regular seed dealer who had an appliance for cleaning and grading; I have consulted several lawyers, and especially the deputy of my department, and they hold that the words ' to be cleaned and graded before being offered for sale ' relieve the farmer from any responsibility who sells to the country merchant, who in turn sells to the larger merchant, with the intention of having the seed cleaned and graded before being sold for seeding purposes. The belief is that this clause completely protects the country merchant who purchases from the farmer with the intention afterwards of selling to the seed merchant, who would clean and grade.


William Ross: I buy a great many seeds, and some that are not sold by retail or sold for seeding. We handle a great many seeds which are sold to dealers, who, in their turn, reclean and grade them, and under these circumstances, I was anxious to know whether I could still continue my business.. I am glad to hear from the hon. minister that the clause covers that. I would suggest to him that the word ' or ' should be substituted for the word ' and,' so that the clause would read :
Any person selling seeds direct to merchants to be cleaned * or ' graded.
We avoid as much as possible buying uncleaned small seed, that is seed that has the chaff in it, just as it comes from the thresh-227
ers, but sometimes we are compelled to take it. We also buy seed which the farmer calls sufficiently clean, and if the word ' or ' were inserted, that seed could be sold for grading purposes. It perhaps might not be quite clean, but it would go to be graded and if the word ' or ' were inserted, it would cover that. I think it would improve the section.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Some seedsmen in my locality buy seeds from the farmers and sell them wholesale or retail, but never clean them, because they have no cleaning apparatus. Suppose they sold to a person who did not clean or grade it, what would be the condition then ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: If the farmer sold it for seeding purposes, the farmer would be liable.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: But the farmer might say that he did not sell it for seeding purposes.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: The merchant who sold it to another farmer for seeding purposes would be liable. If the country nferchant sold it to a seed merchant who went into |the cleaning and grading of seeds, the country merchant would not be liable, because he is selling it for the purpose of cleaning and grading, and not for seeding. I do not think there is any objection to the word ' or ' being substituted for the word ' and,' and perhaps it may improve the section. This clause would not cover the case where the country merchant sold uncleaned seed to a farmer for seeding purposes, and I do not think it ought, because the country merchant should be subject to the same law as the wholesale seed dealer if he sells to a farmer for seeding purposes.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I am told by a gentleman of experience that this law would drive a number of men out of the business, and therefore it would reduce the competition in the sale of seed. I gave this Bill to a gentleman to examine it carefully, and he said that either the Act must remain a dead letter or otherwise a number of persons who dealt in seed would be liable to be mulcted very frequently. This gentleman has handled seeds for the last twenty years, and he has no apparatus for cleaning them. Another gentleman who does purchase and clean seeds told me that he thought he would not be able to carry on his business under this Bill, It seems to me that the measure is likely to be very unpopular. It might be made as perfect as possible, and then allow it to stand over for another session, until we get suggestions from seedsmen and farmers which would make it workable.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: That is what we are trying to do now. There is no doubt that the country merchants who sell seeds to the farmers for seeding purposes ought to be liable to the same conditions as the general seed merchants.


George Stephens: If a merchant takes so little interest in his business that he would not prepare himself to clean the seed and make it fit for farmers to use, he should not be allowed to stay in the business to the detriment of all the farmers who dealt with him.
Mr. HcuHES (P.E.I.). If this Bill does not prevent men from selling the seeds of noxious weeds for good seeds, then it is of no use at all. If you make the Bill so that it will allow a man to sell weed seeds for other seeds, and if he can go on with his business in that line just as before, then there would be no use placing this Act upon the statute-book. My hon. friend seems to wish to make the Bill so wide and easy in order to make it workable, that it will work no injury to any man, and he can sell what he likes. Certainly the Bill must interfere with the business of those men who sell noxious weed seeds, no matter who they may be, and every person recognizes that a great deal of harm is done in that way. We recognize that by passing this Bill, and I would suggest that this clause be allowed to go through as it is.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I am simply drawing attention to the objection which has been raised by the men in the business. These men very often purchase from one farmer and sell to another. They do that for the convenience of the farmers, and no doubt make a little profit out of the transaction as well. It is because of the contention of these men that they cannot carry on their business without violating the law, that I am suggesting that we should not pass the Bill at once, but let it stand over in order to see if some suggestion cannot be made whereby these men shall be able to carry on their business, and do it profitably without violating the law.


Francis Carmichael Bruce: There is no doubt that this Bill is a very serious matter, both to the seedsman and to the farmer. We are not likely to place ourselves in danger of coming under the penalties of this Act without taking the greatest precaution in regard to the seeds we buy. The farmers who produce the seeds have not yet had an opportunity to make careful preparation for the Act. When the farmer has had an opportunity to learn that he cannot sell the poor-seed which he has been in the habit of producing, he will not produce It. If this measure be made law now, he not only looses the value of his hay crop, but his seed as well. It would be a very serious mistake to bring this Act into force at once. I notice from * Hansard ' that when the Bill was discussed last week, the hon. minister said that the farmers had not the necessary machinery for cleaning seed. I think every farmer who cleans seed for sale should have the necessary machinery. It Is a very simple thing. A farmer can Hon. Mr. FISHEfi.
get a perfect seed mill for $25, and that would enable him to sell his seed to his neighbour. Under existing conditions, as the hon. member for West Elgin (Mr. Robinson) stated the other night, it would be necessary to establish seed shops in every township. The farmers ought to have the machinery necessary to put their grain into marketable condition before they can sell it, and there is no reason why they should not have such machinery.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: My hon. friend was not here the other evening when I stated the result of the tests made of various samples of seed; but they show that even without any warning such as that which has been before the country by reason of the discussion of this Bill, the proportion of seed which is bad in this way is not so very great


Mr. SMITH (Wentworth).: I do not see quite clearly how a farmer would know, when he is offering seed for sale, say to a jobber, whether it is to be re-cleaned or not. In what way is the farmer to be relieved?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: In any prosecution under the Act, the proof would have to be brought forward. As a general rule, jobbers do not buy seed for seed purposes. In the case mentioned, the jobber would have to prove that he had bought it for seed purposes.


Ernest D'Israeli Smith: The farmer would have to ask the purchaser whether the seed was to be re-cleaned and graded or not ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I do not think so. The clause does not mean that.
Section 6 agreed to.
On section 7,
Every person who, by himself or through the agency of another person, violates any of the provisions of sections 3, 4 and 5 of this Act, shall, on summary conviction, be liable to a fine for the first offence not exceeding twenty-five dollars and not less than five dollars, and for each subsequent offence not exceeding fifty dollars and not less than ten dollars, together with the costs of prosecution, for each receptacle, package, sack or bag in or from which seeds are sold, offered, exposed or had in possession for sale, contrary to the provisions of the said sections ; and, in default of paying such fine and costs, shall be liable to imprisonment. with or without hard labour, for a term not exceeding one month, unless such fine and the costs of enforcing it are sooner paid.


Francis Carmichael Bruce: I understand that the penalties imposed by this Act are taken from the Adulteration Act. There is no Charge that either the seedsmen or the farmers of the country have been guilty of anything in the shape of adulteration, and I think the penalties are unnecessarily severe. I notice that the amendment of

the minister has reduced them considerably-but I think they should be made simply nominal, for the purpose of carrying out the Act as intended. I understand perfectly well that the minister has no intention of doing an injustice to the farmer or any injury to the seedsman; blit that his object is only to make them both live up as closely to this Act as possible.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I do not think the penalties imposed in this section are at all undue.
On section 7a,
Any person domiciled within the Dominion ot Canada who sells seeds in packages, sacks or bags, sealed by him, shall alone be held to the observance of the provisions of this Act with respect to said seeds, so long as the same are sold without the seal thereon being broken ; and such person shall not be responsible therefor after the seal thereon is broken, unless at the time of breaking of said seal a sample of said seeds for official test is taken and inclosed in a sealed (package in the presence of two noninterested witnesses ; and in no case shall the responsibility of such person for such seeds extend beyond ninety days from the date cf placing the seal thereon, which date must be plainly marked on said packages, sacks or bags.


Aaron Abel Wright: How will that affect the retail merchant who gets long grass or clover in seed packages of a quarter of a pound each? There is no seal on them, but they are just fastened together with mucilage.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: A seal would have to be put upon the package. The wholesale dealer is only held responsible so long as the seal is unbroken.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The time limit is ninety days. Suppose the seedsmen did not dispose of the seeds inside that time ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: He could no longer hold the wholesale dealer responsible, unless before the ninety days he had taken a sample and inclosed it in a sealed package.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Every package should show on its face the date on which it was put up.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: The clause says so.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: In what position would the seller be after ninety days ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: He then would be responsible.


Jabel Robinson: Does the hon. minister intend appointing an inspector ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I have no intention of appointing an inspector outside the present staff of the department.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: After ninety days that wholesale dealer is not responsible ? He
227i
must put a date on each seal. But he may be putting up and sealing thousands of these packages, must he stamp them all ?


William Ross: Is it the date of the sale or the shipment that he puts on the seal ? Suppose a sale was made in July for shipment in October, which date would be put on ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I should suppose myself that the seal would be put on at the time the seeds were put up. Of course the wholesaler might chose to put up a lot of packages before making a sale. In such a case, he would put a date on each. If the seeds are sealed up for ninety days, they would be as likely to deteriorate in the hands of the wholesaler as*the retailer.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Suppose the wholesaler puts up impure seeds and keeps them in his store until the ninety days have expired and then sells them, is he relieved from responsibility ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Yes, he is after the ninety days.


Samuel Hughes: A wholesale dealer has a lot of seed. He puts up a portion of it at the beginning of the ninety days and the rest of the stuff he does not put up until after the ninety days-what is the object ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: The seed merchants complain that they might put up perfectly pure seed which would go into the hands of the retailer, and then the retailer would adulterate the seed, but the name of the wholesale dealer would be on the package. A farmer who bought from the retailer a package, might sample and test it, and find that the seed was adulterated and he would come on the retail dealer. But the retail dealer would say : I bought that from the wholesale dealer as pure seed, and I ought not be liable. The wholesale dealer, whose name is on the package, wants protection, and we are providing protection, if he chooses to put a seal on the package which he sells to the retailer. As long as that seal is unbroken, he is held responsible during ninety days from the date of putting on the seal. As soon as the seal is broken or the ninety days have expired, he is no longer responsible.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: When do the ninety days begin to count ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: From the time the seal is put on. The retailer can protect himself, when he opens the package, by taking out a sample and by inclosing it under seal in another package in the presence of two witnesses.


Samuel Hughes: Suppose the retailer opens the bag and sells part of it, what becomes of the rest ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: The retailer is responsible after the seal

7209
is broken. But if be keeps tbe seal over' ninety days without breaking tbe seal, tbe wholesaler will be no longer responsible.


Samuel Hughes: May not tbe retailer then sell that seed ?.


Tbe MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Yes, but subject to tbe provisions of tbe Bill. If he sells seed mixed with weeds or which does not germinate, be will be liable to tbe penalty.


William Ross: Does tbe bon. minister mean to say that if a wholesaler sells a retailer seeds on a ninety day guarantee, that guarantee does not start at tbe time tbe goods are shipped ? If it starts sixty days before tbe goods are shipped, then tbe retailer has only thirty days in which to recoup himself.


Tbe MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Tbe wholesaler is relieved of tbe responsibility after tbe seal is broken or after ninety days. If the retailer thinks that tbe date of tbe seal is too far back, be need not purchase it, or be may insist, that tbe seal be dated when be purchases the seed.


William Ross: Has be that privilege ?


Tbe MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Certainly. The only thing is, tbe wholesaler is responsible so long as bis seal is unbroken, up to a limit of ninety days. If the seal is broken, tbe retailer has to assume the responsibility, except that be takes a sample of the seed and that sample will be proof of tbe quality. If tbe retailer, however, bolds tbe seed for longer than ninety days be is responsible, no matter whether tbe seal is broken or not.


Samuel Hughes: Does tbe bon. minister intend keeping a check on this sealing up business? Is he going to have an inspector in every seed warehouse in Canada ?


Tbe MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: This is simply a matter of precaution as between the wholesaler and tbe retailer. Tbe wholesaler is afraid the retailer will change the seed in tbe packages. Suppose, for instance Mr. Rennie, of Toronto, should sell seed to John Jones, a country merchant. He puts on the package his name, ' Rennie,' a name which carries weight in the seed market. The retailer takes the seed out of the package and fills the package with other seed, selling it as Rennie's. If the retailer were fined for selling such seed, Mr. Rennie's reputation would suffer.


Samuel Hughes: And so would that of the retailer.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: But he would try to evade the blame by saying that he had: received the seed from Rennie and was faultless in the matter.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: 


Samuel Hughes: Was there ever a case in which a retailer was fined for selling impure seeds ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: There has been no law under which he could be fined, except_the common law. We are trying to provide machinery to meet such cases. The seed merchants tell us that if the Bill had not such provision they might be liable to such misrepresentation and they wish to be protected. This clause is for the purpose of providing means by which a wholesale seed merchant may protect himself in a certain manner for a certain time.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: But suppose a retailer bought a thousand packages of seed. If he wished to protect himself must he take a sample of every half-pound package ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: As a matter of fact, seed merchants do not sell seeds in packages, except garden flower seeds, which are to be exempt from the operation of this law.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Turnip and carrot seeds are sold in packages.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: As between the wholesaler and the retailer, they are sold in bulk, and the retailer puts them in smaller packages.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I beg'the kon. gentleman's pardon-these seeds are sold by the wholesaler in packages. We buy nearly all our mangel seeds in packages, because they are supposed to be a little better. And the same way with turnip seeds.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Such transactions will not come within the operation of the Act when the word ' vegetable ' is struck out of the third section.


George Stephens: There is one point I would like to understand. A wholesale! sells seeds in sealed packages. At the end of ninety days he is relieved of responsibility. But suppose after ninety days the package is broken open and it is found to contain a large proportion of weed seeds. Is the wholesaler responsible or is he still relieved of responsibility ?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The retailer would be responsible and the wholesaler would be relieved.


George Stephens: I do not think the law should be made to work that way.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: That is the effect of the Bill.


Samuel Hughes: The whole thing is a little seedy.
At six o'clock, committee took recess.
After Recess.
Committee resumed at Eight o'clock. -
7241.


Peter Macdonald: We were considering clause 7a.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: It seems to me that clause is hardly what it ought to he to protect the retail dealer. While it would he a protection to the wholesale man, it would be little protection to the retailer.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Perhaps the date ought to be reckoned from the sale of the seeds. In that adjoining -section, I had intended that the sealing should be done at the time of the sale or the shipment. I had no idea of seed being put up in quantities with the seal on it -while still held in the hands of the dealer for future sale. If that were done, it would to a certain extent meet the in-tion of the section. I would therefore be disposed to change the section and make it read :
In no ease shall the responsibility of such person for such seeds extend beyond ninety days friom the date of the sale thereof.
Instead of saying 'the date of placing the seal thereof.'


William Ross: That is better.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: That might be still a little indefinite; the sale and the shipment might not necessarily be at the same time. Now, the sale might be held to take place at the time the order was given, though the dealer might not deliver for several months after, in which case ninety days ought to be counted from the time he put up the seeds and shipped them. I would ask the opinion of the bon. member for Hamilton, who is in the trade.


Francis Carmichael Bruce: Do I understand this refers to clover and grass seeds?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Yes.


Francis Carmichael Bruce: Exclusively?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: To all seeds that come under the operation of the Act.


Francis Carmichael Bruce: It would be rather a serious matter for the dealers. Clover and grass seed are sold entirely for cash, we draw immediately upon shipment. If the buyer were enablej to hold this seed for ninety deys and then to put in a complaint about it, it would be a very serious obstacle to the business. The profits on clovers and grass seeds are infinitesimal, and the dealers could not afford to carry the seeds for a long time. If it was simply a matter of forty or fifty bags of seed, the country dealer could test the seed without breaking the seal, except of one bag, and make a complaint if necessary. He could try a bag of seed with one of these little triers as soon as he received it, and if he had any objection he could make a complaint to the shipper. But no seedsman could possibly
do business under that provision and carry it for ninety days.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I have proposed another section 12 instead of the present section 12, which will read :
Amy sample of seeds taken from any seeds which are found or suspected to be sold in violation of tihe provisions of this Act, shall, within a delay of seven days, be reckoned (a) in the oase of seeds under seal as aforesaid, from the date of the breaking of the seal ; in all other cases, from the date on which the said seed entered into the personal possession and became the property of the purchaser.
The printed section 12 says simply seven days in all cases, it was Intended to he seven days after breaking the seal. Of course, in that case the test need not be made at any time during the ninety days, or until breaking the seal.


Francis Carmichael Bruce: Seven days after breaking the seal would not answer tlie purpose, because be might carry it for the full ninety days and be would still be under obligation. I think the seven days given to the wholesaler after shipment would be quite sufficient for a cash article, when settlement is to be made immediately upon receipt of the seed.


James Gilmour: During seven days the seal should not be broken, because the moment the seal is broken and the bag opened, the wholesale man should not he held responsible for that opened hag, because other seed might be put into it.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: The intention is that the wholesaler shall only be responsible until the seal is broken. The ninety days is rather a restriction of that, because even if the seal was not broken at the end of ninety days, the wholesaler would be relieved of all responsibility.


James Gilmour: I agree with the hon. member for Hamilton. Why should the wholesaler have ninety days ? He can ascertain directly whether it is up to the standard or not, and he should he relieved at once. To carry it for ninety days would almost mean that the money should not be paid until the ninety days were over.


George Taylor: I would like the minister to explain how the penalties imposed by this Act will be enforced when a conviction is secured against either the wholesale merchant or the retail merchant. Is it expected that every retail merchant will be an analyst, and that be will know when he opens the bag whether the seed comes up to tlie standard or not ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: He will take a sample and send it to the analyst in the department, who will test it for him and report.


George Taylor: But before be gets that done tbe season will be over for making use of tbe seed.


Francis Carmichael Bruce: As I understand it, tbe department will regulate the grades of the seed at tbe beginning of tbe season, so that not only tbe wholesale seedsman but the retailer will understand what tbe grades are. If tbe wholesale seedsman ships to tbe retailer, tbe latter can get samples from the department here ncccord-ing to the grades they have established, 1, 2 or 3, and be can compare tbe shipment with tbe sample from tbe department. It would be a simple matter, on the receipt of any shipment, to tell whether tbe seed is up to grade. But there should be no indefinite time such as ninety days, because it would be impossible to conduct business under those conditions.


George Taylor: That may be the plan by which the minister intends to work it out for the security of the retail merchant. But I am bound to say that there is not a retail merchant in the country who is competent to discover from a sample of timothy seed how many foul seeds there may be in it. I could tell d^iisy seed in a sample of timothy, but there are other foul seeds more injurious than daisy that I could not tell. Let me give an illustration : A retail merchant sends to my hon. friend, or to Mr. Rennie, the seedsman whom the minister recommended, for a bag of timothy or of clover or of alsike. He receives these three bags stamped with the name of the seed merchant and there is a seal on them. He breaks the seal before he can look at the seed. The seedsman is liberated as soon as the seal is broken. The dealer breaks the seal in the presence of two farmers. The seed looks all right at the mouths of the bags. It may be up to the standard so far as he is competent to judge. He takes a sample out of each bag in the presence of the farmers, they seal . the samples up, put their names upon them and they are put away in a drawer. Then the merchant deals out to the first farmer a peck or a bushel taken from each of these bags. The other farmer wants the same quantity and he gets his peck or bushel out of each of these bags. Then the farmers go home to their farms. They have both clean land on which to sow the seed. After they have sown their grain they sow their timothy and their alsike. It will not develop foul seed at once. When the farmer cuts bis crop of grain off he finds that he has a good catch of seed, but it does not fully develop until next spring, and then he gets his crop of hay. Perhaps one of those farmers will say that the seed produced its kind and that he never had better seed on the farm. The other will come back to tbe merchant and say : The crop the seed for which I got from you, was full of foul weeds. How is the hon.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: minister going to convict the merchant who sold the seed ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: A sample is taken and either of these farmers who bought the seed can have that sample forwarded to the seed laboratory and a test will show the exact condition of the seed.


George Taylor: I explained that the sample was taken, but it was from the mouth of the bag. One farmer had got his seed out of the mouth of the bag while the foul seed was found below that.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: A proper sample would not be taken out of the mouth of the bag.


George Taylor: Is he going to empty that bag out in order to get a sample ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: No, there is a very simple contrivance costing about twenty-five cents by which they can take samples from any portion of the bag. A proper sample would be taken in that way.
Mr. TAYLOIi. Then, each merchant who handles seed has to provide himself with one of these contrivances ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I think it will be wise for him to do so.
Mr. TAYLOR, If you establish a laboratory and the sample upon examination is found to be foul, perhaps the farmer could get back at the wholesale merchant, but the farmer cannot tell for six or eight months after he has sown the seed whether he has foul seed or not. It would be impossible for him to prove that he purchased this foul seed from the merchant because any man might walk upon the farm at night and sow foul seed. It looks as if this Bill will be entirely unworkable, a great disturbance to the trade and of no great benefit to the country.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: My hon. friend (Mr. Taylor) is perfectly right in saying that somebody could walk upon a farmer's land and sow foul seed, although I do not think it is at all likely to be done by any person but the farmer himself, but I admit frankly that the growth of weeds is not a sufficient proof that the seed contained foul weed seeds. Many weed seeds will stay for a considerable length of time in the land before germinating and they are carried by wind and birds from one farm to another, and from one field to another, but, I think the machinery that we propose is quite sufficient to prove the quality of the seed that is sown. That is all we can do. We do not expect to perform miracles, but we believe that we can minimize the risks and difficulties attendent upon the sale of seed.


William Ross: Section 3 says that any person who sells seeds containing noxious weed seeds shall be liable. It is not the intention of the hon. minister to allow either the 90 day or the 7 day clause to interfere with that prohibition as far as noxious weeds are concerned, is it ? I presume that must refer to germination.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: The seven days is merely the time within which the sample must be taken. This is simply to insure that the sample by which the shipment or delivery of seeds is judged shall be taken at once. If it is not taken at once it would not be fair to judge the seeds by that sample. The seven days period is given as a reasonable time within which the merchant can take his sample. I think there might be a less delay than that-three or four days possibly. The 90 days in clause 7 deals with a totally different point, and I am not at all certain from what has fallen from the lips of the hon. member for Hamilton (Mr. Bruce) but what it would be better to expunge that part from the guarantee. I can understand from what he says the difficulties in the trade which might arise from the insertion of the 90 days clause. I would be disposed from what he says to leave that out. That was Simply put in as an assistance to the wholesale dealer to limit his responsibility. Even if the seal was unbroken he should not be responsible for more than 90 days, but if that is stricken out, then he would be responsible just.as long as the seal was unbroken.


Francis Carmichael Bruce: 
Aaron Abel Wright: This thing will gradually rectify itself. When this law passes and the seed dealers find it is necessary for them to have clean seed, they will send an inspector around themselves and see where the grain is being grown and that there are no weeds in it. For example, we grew a large quantity of pease for sale to the American market, and we hand-picked them- all, and have fifty or sixty women picking them over, so that they would be perfectly clean. The American purchasers of these seeds sent out inspectors, who went through the fields where the pease were grown, and if they found there were any weeds in the crop they would have them picked out. The seedsmen who will buy these seeds will similarly go to the farmer and see whether the fields are perfectly clean or not.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I appreciate very highly the statement of the hon. member for Hamilton (Mr. Bruce) with regard to the educational work that has been done in the country by the officers of my department. I am glad to hear that the people are asking for the best quality of seeds, and that is a most gratifying fact to me as the result of work which has been done by my department. I believe that that educational work will go on in the future as it has been going on in the past. The hon. gentleman says that if this Act was to come into force lie would reject about 50 per cent of the seed which he purchases from the farmers, instead of 10 per cent as now. That would be one of the most beneficial educational forces that could be exerted in the country. Mv hon. friend (Mr. Bruce) and some others of the most reliable and most experienced dealers in the country do reject seed which is full of impurities when it comes into them, and if they would reject more I am satisfied that it would be all the better. Some may say that this is going to cut some

farmers out of their seed trade, but if it is going to cut the farmers out of the sale of weed seeds, I would be glad of it. That action on the part of the seed dealers will accomplish much in an educative way. It is not so long since country store keepers purchased good, bad and indifferent butter, and paid an average price per pound for it, but that kind of thing has passed away in this country, and to-day the farmer who makes good butter gets a better price for it than the farmer who makes bad butter. And so if the seed merchants will pay the farmers according to the quality of the seed, the farmer will soon find that it will pay him better to keep his seeds cipan. If the seed merchants would go a little further and, as my hon. friend from Renfrew lias described, send inspectors out to examine the fields, they will get better seeds than they now do. It may be that some of them do it now, but, judging by this discussion, I do not think that they engage in such work as this.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: 'Seven out of ten farmers sell more or less seed every year, and that would practically mean that you would have to inspect every farm.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I think the seed merchants, as a rule, buy from particular farmers, and they could examine the fields of these farmers without much trouble. In the case cited by the member for Renfrew, the inspectors were sent to Canada by the United States seed merchants.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: In my section of the country men will come in with a load of seed fifteen or twenty miles, and that seed will include alsike, mammoth clover and different others, and if you followed out that plan, you might as well go out and inspect every farm.


Francis Carmichael Bruce: Do I understand that the minister expects the seedsmen to inspect the fields ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I did not say I expected it, but I think in many instances it would be advisable.


Francis Carmichael Bruce: Many of the best farmers make a practice of going over the fields before they are cut, because if there are weeds in the field it is utterly impossible to separate the weed from the seed when the threshing takes place. A careful farmer will cut the weeds before the crop is cut.
I wish to address some observations to the minister in regard to the question of germination. I think the seedsmen who interviewed the Minister of Agriculture mentioned that it would be very difficult for them to comply with the regulations with regard to germination. For instance, I get a carload of seed to-day and I ship out the most_ of it that day or the following day, and it is impossible for me to test the ger-Hon. Mr. FISHER.
urination in that time. With a short season, lasting three or four months, and carloads going out and carloads coming in, it would be impossible to test tlje germination. I know perfectly well that there is very little difficulty with regard to timothy and clover, because, if you get new seeds and you can tell them by their colour, there is never any doubt about the germination, so that we pay very little attention to the question of germination in clover and timothy. In the case of vegetables and feed seeds, we are most particular. We get them in bulk from growers early in the season, and we have an opportunity to test their germinating qualities long before they are sold. It would be utterly impossible for us to test the germination of clover and grasses as they come in and go out ; but, of course, we can tell very easily whether they are new or old seeds. It does not pay any dealer to carry seeds over for one year. The interest on the seeds carried over will amount to the profit.


George Taylor: I understood the minister to say, before recess, that the ninety-day limit he thought quite sufficient, because during those ninety days the seeds would deteriorate, particularly timothy. Now, I would like to ask my hon. friend from Hamilton, who is a practical man, will timothy seed deteriorate in ninety days ?


Francis Carmichael Bruce: Not unless it happens to be mouldy or heated. If it is in perfect condition when put into the bags, it will keep for three years.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: The hon. gentleman misquoted me. I said timothy seed which had lost its hulls. I think that makes a difference.


Francis Carmichael Bruce: Hulled timothy seed will retain its vitality for three years, and I do not think you will find any difference in its germination.
The MINISTER | OF AGRm Ll LTURE. I think, from what I have been told, that a seed expert as a rule can tell pretty well the germinating quality of a seed by looking at it-not absolutely perhaps, but pretty closely ; and I think I am justified in saying that from what my hon. friend has just said.


Francis Carmichael Bruce: There is no doubt about that at all. We would not be afraid of the restrictions of the Act in reference to germination.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The germinating quality of good, healthy, fresh clover and grass seed is usually all right. But the seeds with which the farmers with us find the greatest trouble are mangold seeds and beet seeds. It is the very common opinion among farmers that the dealers, when they keep the seeds over a year, steep the old seeds, skim off those that float, and mix the others with the new seeds and sell them. There is a great complaint in our part of

the country that not one-half or one-quarter of the mangold or beet seeds will grow. We scarcely ever hear a complaint about clover or grass seed.


Duncan Cameron Fraser: Do I understand that that method, of putting seeds in water, is taken with seeds not immediately planted ?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: It is said so. I do not know whether it is true or not.


Duncan Cameron Fraser: I would' not think that seeds put into water to be tested in that way would afterwards be sold as a commercial article.


Francis Carmichael Bruce: I would say, in reply to the hon. member for East Grey, that the idea that old seeds are put into water so that the defective seed may be floated or skimmed oft is an absolute fallacy. It would be impossible to turn over tons of stuff to swim it, and then dry it again. I never heard of such a thing being done. With regard to the germination of mangold or sugar beet seeds, I may say that every perfect seed will produce a true plant, and mangold seeds will retain their vitality for a long time ; but no seedsman or grower can take the responsibility of making a seed germinate after it is put in the ground, if it has not the proper conditions of soil, climate and rain.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: But where the conditions seem to be favourable in every respect, the soil properly worked up and the moisture all right, you naturally look for a fair proportion of the seeds to grow ; but when you find that only one-half or one-quarter of them grow, you naturally conclude that the seed could not have been very good.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I will ask that the section immediately after section 7a be allowed to stand for further consideration, as it is not in quite the shape in which it ought to be for an enactment.


George Taylor: The hon. minister had better let the whole Bill stand. As it is to-day, with all the amendments made to it, the hon. gentleman would hardly recognize it as his own child. It came before the House in such a crude shape that it required all these amendments. I think he had better take the advice of his friends on both sides and ask that the committee rise, report progress and sit again next session.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: There are some other things to be considered before we reach that point.
Section allowed to stand.
Off section 8,


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: 
James Gilmour: The purchaser might not be a bona fide purchaser. He might just have bought a pound of seed to put himself within the law and become a common informer. There is nothing worse in our country than the trade of the informer. It is most disreputable and leads to serious consequences. We had a sample of it in the working out of the Scott Act, and this would not be mush better. The amendment which the hon. minister has proposed does not improve his Bill.


Francis Carmichael Bruce: I thoroughly agree with my hon. friend from Middlesex. Whatever may he the penalty, and it should not be too large-it ought to go entirely to the government. We ought not to encourage people to become informants because there are too many men looking after such opportunities. I do not think that our seedsmen and farmers should be brought into the category of misdemeanants.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I do not think that the dangers alluded to need be apprehended. Reference has been made to the Scott Act. Well, my own county was under that Act many years, and we had no abuses such as those mentioned. I know that in some parts of the country it was said that such abuses took place, but I think the reports were exaggerated. It was a very rare occurrence indeed when anybody gave information simply to get the fee. The reason for this clause is that the farmer or purchaser of seed, who has suffered by reason of his having purchased improper seed, is performing a public service when he prosecutes the seller; but if he has to do it at his own expense, he will probably think that he has suffered enough already, without going to the trouble of a prosecution, when he has to run all the risk without any chance of being reimbursed. However, I am in the hands of the committee and quite content to abide by its decision.


William Ross: This kind of legislation is not right. If a farmer is aggrieved he has his remedy. He can bring an action and have the man fined. In my opinion the whole money should go to the Crown. A very special case would have to be made out before I would consent to furnishing opportunities to our farmers to go into the

business of informing. I would ask the hon. minister to strike out that clause.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: As the sense of the committee is against the clause, I withdraw my motion.
Motion withdrawn.
The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE moved that the committee rise and report progress and ask leave to sit again.


James Gilmour: I would suggest to the hon. minister that he should have this Bill reprinted so that we may see exactly what it is. It has met with considerable opposition, but I believe that there is more merit in it than there was in the Fruits Marks Act, because in that Act the packers of apples are required to be learned in the law. They have to bring out the statute and lay it on the barrel in order to mark their barrels in accordance with the statutes. Then should they mark their barrels wrong-and they might easily do that because the quality of the fruit is only a matter of opinion-they are responsible for their action. This Bill has more merit than even the Butter Bill, because that Bill gave a privilege to certain individuals to stamp their butter as creamery butter which was refused to the other individuals just as well entitled to it. And in another part of that Bill, dairy butter of the commonest quality is allowed to be freely sold, but you are not allowed to clarify it and sell it after it has been thus made more palatable. I hope that the hon. minister will be able to make this Bill workable, as in such case it will be better perhaps for the country.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I am exceedingly gratified by the compliment which my hon. friend has paid me when he said that there is more merit in this Bill than in the Fruits Marks' Act. That Act has done inestimable good to the fruit trade. Of this I have convincing proofs every day, not only in this country but in Europe. In saying therefore that this measure has more merit than the Fruits Marks' Act, he is paying it the highest possible compliment.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I would like to ask another question. Should this Bill become law, suppose a farmer finds seeds, which were sold to him as pure, to be mixed with obnoxious weeds, would he not have an action for damage against the seedsman, even though the seedsman stated in his catalogue that he did not guarantee the seed. The seedsman could not shelter himself behind this Act. The law makes the standard. The standard says the seed shall be pure, and the farmer purchases it, believing it to be pure. Suppose he finds it is not pure, what remedy would the farmer have in law against the seller ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: My hon. friend (Mr. Sproule) ought not to ap-Mr. ROSS .(Ontario).
peal to) me on a question of law for I am not a lawyer-


Thomas Simpson Sproule: But the hon. gentleman has the Minister of Justice beside him.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: But, without appealing to the Minister of Justice, and even though I am not a lawyer, there are one or two things in the hon. gentleman's (Mr. Sproule) remarks which I think I can answer. There is nothing in this Act to prevent an action under the civil law for damages. This Act is of the nature of a criminal law and provides for penalties.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: And not damages for loss sustained ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: No, that is a matter of civil rights, and, as such, I understand, comes within the jurisdiction of the provincial legislatures- I am speaking subject to correction as a layman. But this Bill would not prevent one from obtaining damages for an injury done.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: It would strengthen his case immensely.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: To provide something of that kind ? But it would be ultra vires of this parliament.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The hon. minister misunderstands me. If a man purchases seeds under this Act, they must conform to a certain standard. And if the seller were condemned under this law for selling impure seed, that fact would immensely strengthen the case of the complainant going into court claiming damages.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Which is an argument for the passing of this Act.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I am not objecting to it, but rather commending that feature of it.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I appreciate that, and I think the hon. gentleman is right. This will provide machinery by which a man could sustain an action for damages better than could be done at the present time. The members of the committee have discussed this Bill pretty generally. Before the committee rises, I would like to say that I think I have accomplished what I had hoped for in the discussion. I have had the advantage of the opinion of the members of the House which I asked for when I first introduced the Bill in committee. I am sure that these opinions and the discussion which has arisen here will assist very much in the perfecting of this law. If its passage is delayed for another year, the discussions which have taken place this session will not be lost by any means. I trust that as a consequence of the discussion the people who are interested in the seed trade, the farmers who purchase, the men who handle and the deal-

ers who grade the seeds, will study the proposed law, and will give us the benefit of that study. And I trust that, as a result of all1 this the law will be more perfect than it could otherwise have been made on a first attempt at legislation of this kind.


James Gilmour: Will the hon. minister have the Bill printed as he intends to have it enforced at a future date ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I will take steps to have the Bill printed as it is now before the committee.


Francis Carmichael Bruce: I desire to thank the hon. Minister of Agriculture for the painstaking and careful way in which he has listened to every suggestion that has been offered. But I trust he will see the absurdity of the suggestion of the hon. member for Grey that he should follow up a dealer who has sold a lot of timothy or clover and allow the buyer to come back for damages against the seedsmen because there might possibly be mustard in the seeds he bought. The buyer has an opportunity to see the seed and know whether their is a mustard in it, for the mustard seeds can be detected at once; moreover, no seedsman who knows his business will sell clover with mustard in it. because the mustard can easily be seen and easily removed. It may be that a crop of mustard will be found in land on which the seed is sown, but then the mustard may have been there for years, and it would be most unfair to subject the seedsman to a charge for that with which he had nothing to do.
Bill reported.



SUPPLY-TROPHY OF THE GORDON HIGHLANDERS.

[Stage Direction]
The POSTMASTER GENERAL (Hon. Sir William Mulock) moved that the House again go into Committee of Supply.
['There would be this difficulty, that it would take $12,500 to pay a\ndoctor to inspect these hospitals, at the price doctors are paid out there.\nSome resolutions reported.']
Samuel Hughes: Mr. Spteaker, before you leave the Chair, I desire to draw the attention of the House to the handsome trophy which stands on the Table. This is a trophy presented by the first battalion of the Gordon Highlanders to the Dominion Rifle Association, in commemoration of the services of the Canadian troops, especially of the first Royal Canadian regiment, in South Africa where they were the comrade regiment of the first battalion of the Gordon Highlanders. It is unnecessary for me to recount the glorious deeds of that historic regiment. This trophy is presented as a token of the friendship and comradeship existing between the regiments and that we trust will always last between the soldiers and citizens of Canada and the soldiers and citizens of the motherland.


The MINISTER OP MILITIA AND DEFENCE. (Hon. Sir Frederick Borden).: Since my hon. friend (Mr. Hughes) has referred
to the matter, perhaps I ought to say a word, as I am responsible for the trophy being placed in the position in which it is. A memorandum will be found immediately in front of the trophy which explains the source from which it came and the reason why it was sent here. I thought it would be agreeable for the members of the House to see it and to have this assurance of the high appreciation by that very gallant and distinguished regiment, the Gordon Highlanders, of the Canadian volunteers who served in South Africa. A tribute to our Canadian soldiers could not come from any higher source than from this gallant regiment with whom our men served side by side in the late war. I think it is a very great compliment to have been paid to our militia, and I am sure the militia throughout the country will appreciate to the full the great honour which has been done them. These are the words engraved upon the trophy :
Trophy presented by the 1st battalion of the Gordon Highlanders to the Dominion Rifle Association in remembrance of the spirit of comradeship which existed between that corps and the Canadian troops in South Africa during the South African campaign.
I am sure I need not add a word to this. It speaks volumes of itself.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House went into Committee of Supply.
Department of Indian Affairs-British Columbia-industrial and boarding schools, 560,650.
['Since my hon. friend (Mr. Hughes) has referred\nto the matter, perhaps I ought to say a word, as I am responsible for the trophy being placed in the position in which it is. A memorandum will be found immediately in front of the trophy which explains the source from which it came and the reason why it was sent here. I thought it would be agreeable for the members of the House to see it and to have this assurance of the high appreciation by that very gallant and distinguished regiment, the Gordon Highlanders, of the Canadian volunteers who served in South Africa. A tribute to our Canadian soldiers could not come from any higher source than from this gallant regiment with whom our men served side by side in the late war. I think it is a very great compliment to have been paid to our militia, and I am sure the militia throughout the country will appreciate to the full the great honour which has been done them. These are the words engraved upon the trophy :\nTrophy presented by the 1st battalion of the Gordon Highlanders to the Dominion Rifle Association in remembrance of the spirit of comradeship which existed between that corps and the Canadian troops in South Africa during the South African campaign.\nI am sure I need not add a word to this. It speaks volumes of itself.']
The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: There is a decrease here of $8,200, from the fact that this year we do not require the vote we bad last year for erecting school buildings.


Mr. WILSON.: How many Indian schools are there ?


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: There are 31 day schools in British Columbia, to which we give $300 each and one to which we give $400.


Uriah Wilson: Perhaps the minister could tell us when these schools were established, whether many of them were established lately; also, what salaries are paid to the principals of these schools?


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: I cannot tell my hon. friend the time when each school was established. I suppose that could be found in the records of the department. In the case of day schools, whenever evidence is brought forward that there is need of a school in any particular district, I look into the information furnished, and if I think the need is pressing, I allow for a salary. The ordinary salary is $300. Most of these schools, in fact all the day schools, are carried on under the supervision of some religious body.


Uriah Wilson: What kind of a school have you at Brandon ?


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: I would remind my hon. friend that. this item refers to the schools in British Columbia. I may answer, however, that the industrial school at Brandon was established about 1892 or 1893. The buildings were put up at that time.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: On what principle do you supply medical attendance and medicines 7


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: We have practically the same arrangement there that we have in other places; we simply have to furnish medical attendance and medicines to the Indians where we find they are unable to do it for themselves, and we try to keep the expenditure down as low as possible. In British Columbia the expenditure on these items is increasing, and a considerable supplementary vote will be asked for during the present session for the coming year. It seems to be a fact that as the cai-e of the Indians in British Columbia has increased, the demands for medicines and medical attendance have also Increased. I suppose that is due to the fact that in former years, when less attention was paid to them, they did not make so many demands for medicines and medical attendance. Our experience is that as the province of British Columbia opens up and the Indians become better known to the agents and the people the demands constantly increase. We have some sala-' ried officers and we have some who are not under salary.	When they are not
salaried we pay them by fees. We prefer to have them salaried because then we know what we have to provide for.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What do you usually pay for salaries on an agency or reserve 7


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: I will give the hon. gentleman a list. I do not suppose that it will be necessary to read them all. One gets $300, another $240, another $300, $400, $1,200. $500, $1,200. $430, $350, $4S0, $780, $360, $240, $300. $4S0.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: That includes medicine as well ns medical attendance ?


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: Yes.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I notice an item here in connection with the suppression of the liquor traffic. What rule is followed with regard to the convictions which take place amongst Indians in Ontario, for instance, or in any other province ? Under what law do you prosecute 7


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: Under the Indian Act. The Indian Act makes it a criminal offence to sell liquor to Indians.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Yes, but for instance, a prosecution took place on Manitoulin Island.


Uriah Wilson: We have a license law in Ontario which provides a certain fine for any one selling liquor to Indians, and there is a much heavier penalty than for selling liquor to white men. In the event of a prosecution taking place where liquor is sold to Indians would you prosecute under the License Act or the Dominion Indian Act.
The	MINISTER	OF	THE	INTERIOR.
We prosecute in every case under the Indian Act of the Dominion, which makes it an offence to sell liquor to Indians.
Mr.	SPROULE.	That applies all over
the Dominion ?
The	MINISTER	OF	THE	INTERIOR.
Yes.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Where do you find a return of these convictions 7
The	MINISTER	OF	THE	INTERIOR.
I am informed that there is no list published in the report of the department, but if it is thought desirable that such a list should be published there is no trouble in the world in embodying it. Attention has not been called to it before. We have in all cases reports from the agents of the convictions which have taken place.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Then, these reports, I assume, for any year can be obtained from the department.


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: Yes.


Mr. BLAIN.: May I ask the hon. minister to give us a statement of the number of Indians in British Columbia 7


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: According to the census there are about 25,000.


Richard Blain: Would the hon. minister give us some information in respect to their farming operations 7 I notice that the government are supplying a considerable quantity of seeds, &c. ?


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: I cannot give the hon. gentleman (Mr. Blain) very much information about the farming of the British Columbia Indians, because they do not follow farming to any considerable extent. We have not in British Colubmia the system of teaching agriculture to the same extent that we have it among the Indians of the North-west Territories and Manitoba. The Indians of British Columbia are a different class altogether. The greater number of them do not live upon land suitable for farming and do not care to follow farming anyway. A great many of them follow fishing. Many of them go out to labour. They go out when the fishing season is on, and agriculture has not been developed amongst those Indians in the same way as it has been amongst other Indians. Probably the hon. member for Vic-

toria (Mr. Earle) could give more information upon tliat subject than I can.


Richard Blain: Might I ask the hon. minister to give the Indian population of British Columbia to-day as compared with what it was ten years ago ?


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: My information is that there is practically very little variation in the Indian population as far as the information of the department goes. Referring to what my hon. friend asked me a few minutes ago, I find in the records of the department from the British Columbia agencies that the total amount of farm products of all kinds in'oduced in the different reserves in the whole of British Columbia last year amounted to $278,173, the larger portion of which would be hay.


Mr. THOMSON (Grey).: I did not hear any answer to the question as to the salaries totalling $20,440. To what officials are these salaries paid ? Are they departmental officials V


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: The salaries are as follows : A. W. Vowell, chief superintendent, $3,000 ; W. McLaughlin, senior clerk, $1,800 ; W. A. Stevens, clerk, $1,000 ; H. G. Dalby, $720 ; A surveyor, $1,800 ; D. McLaughlin, messenger, $600 ; extra for clerical services in Victoria, offices and agencies, $580; G. W. .DeBeck, agent at Kwawkewlth, $1,200 ; W. R. Robertson, agent at Cowichan, $1,200; R. C. McDonald, Fraser agency, $1,200; A. Irwin, Kamloops and Okanagan agency, $1,200 ; E. Bell, AVilliams lake agency, $1,200; H. Guillod, West Coast agency, $1,200 ; R. L. T. Galbraith, Kootenay agency, $1,200 ; G. W. Morrow, North-west coast agency, $1,800 ; Richard E. Loring, Babine agency, $1,200 ; Tom, constable, Cowichan, $240.
Mr-. THOMSON (North Grey). I notice that we pay for medical attendance $11,000 ; for day schools for educating the Indians we pay $9,700, and for travelling expenses $5,600. I think it most inconsistent that we should pay $5,600 for travelling expenses and $9,700 for schools.


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: I am sorry to say that the objection which my hon. friend takes will probably be removed, because our medical attendance is growing larger, and not because we desire it either. So far as salaries in British Columbia are concerned, it is quite impossible to improve the position. The province is of vast extent, the agencies are separated in most cases by considerable distances, and it is quite impossible to secure the services of agents competent to do the work at salaries substantially less than those which we are paying. My recollection is that the salaries are a trifle less now than when I took office, but there is substantially no increase anyway. The principal expenditure must necessarily be the salary of a good man on the reserve to look after the work. There is an inevitable increase in medical attendance.
I do not see that there is the least power in the department to reduce these expenses.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: These expenditures remind me of the Barney Ricketts road jobs in Muskoka, where they paid $300 for overseeing and travelling expenses and put $50 on the road.


Thomas Inkerman Thomson: It is most extraordinary that you provide the munificent sum of $4,500 for relief to the Indians and $1,000 for seed, while you pay $5,000. for travelling expenses.


Mr. EARLE.: I wish to ask the minister if any progress has been made in the negotiations for the removal of the Songhees reserve ?


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: Some years ago, after a great deal of discussion and trouble, an arrangement was made whereby it would have been possible to remove the Songhees Indians from their reserve. I personally recognized what every one must recognize who has seen the Songhees reserve in the city of Victoria, that it is a source of regret that the reserve should remain where it is. My hon. friend (Mr. Earle) is aware that when I was negotiating with the Indians some years ago, the local government interposed a difficulty which was explained shortly afterwards in this House. Since that time no other definite arrangement has been arrived at. About a year ago I had a discussion with Mr. Eb-berts, then Attorney General of the province of British Columbia, and I reviewed the whole situation with him, and I told him that I was perfectly agreeable to carry out any reasonable arrangement that might be made. I said to him, and I think another member of the local government was present, I said to him : If you carry out in substance the arrangement which I suggested at that time, I am willing to do all I can to give it effect. It was then arranged that Mr. Vowell, the Indian superintendent at Victoria, and the representatives of the local government should try and get together and work out .some kind of an arrangement whereby this should be done. I had hoped at that time that that would have been done, and I rather think that the reason why nothing very substantial has been done lias been owing to political changes in British Columbia which have taken up the attention of the local government very much. I am quite prepared, and have been prex>ared since 1897, to carry out the arrangement on the general lines on which we were negotiating at that time, and which I think are the only lines on w-hich an arrangement can be made. I may remind my hon. friend (Mr. Earle) that the rock on which we split is this. I said : I am willing to undertake the burden of getting the Indians to move,

and I am willing to recognize, in a sense, your reversionary title to the reserve, but you will have to furnish a reserve in place of the one which they have in the city and which the Indians will be willing to accept. That the local government was willing to do, but they said : If the reserve in the city sells for more money than the reserve which we give in its place costs, then we want that money. I said : I cannot, as trustee for the Indians, hand that money over to you, but I will fund that money, and if you establish your title to the money then you can have it. I could not feel it my duty, as superintendent general, to hand over that money to the local government. My impression is that at the last negotiations I had with them they expressed their assent to the proposition, which I had made before, and that the money should be funded, if there was any balance, and dealt with according as the iaw might direct later on. I am perfectly willing to do that now if the local government can give their attention to it and transact their part of the business. I cannot say at the present time if the Indians are willing to go, but at the time I made the proposition they were willing. I am safe in saying that at the time Mr. McKenna and Mr. Rothweil were there, in the summer of 1897, the Indians would have gone, but I cannot say now whether they would or not.


Thomas Earle: As I understand it, the arrangement, as outlined by the minister, is What took place, but I think there was always the difficulty that the Indians would not move, and it remained for the Dominion government to inforce their removal, provided the other conditions were carried out.


The MINISTER OP THE INTERIOR.: I do not think there would have been any trouble about their going in 1897.


Thomas Earle: I notice in the papers since we have been in session that the provincial government had about secured a site suitable for them.


The MINISTER OP THE INTERIOR.: In the proposition I made in 1897 I undertook that the department here would see that they moved, and we were satisfied from the report of our officers that they would go at that time. *


Mr. BROOK.: There is an expenditure here of 8140,000, and in that expenditure there is an item of nearly $70,000 for industrial and boarding schools. I understood from the minister that the British Columbia Indians were engaged as fishermen and as labourers, and I would like to know what is taught in these industrial schools, for which we pay such a large sum of money. The minister said that they were principally under the charge of the different religious bodies. What kind of teaching do they give in these schools that produce fisher-Hon. Mr. FISHER.
men and labourers ? I have no doubt that you are teaching these children some industry, and I would like to know if the minister thinks he is justified in making this large expenditure on education with apparently such barren results ? Are they, when they leave school, turned adrift to go fishing with their fathers and mothers, or do they take to agriculture or to some trade ?


The MINISTER OP THE INTERIOR.: The general question of policy as to Indian education is a very large question. The system of education by industrial schools was inaugurated a good many years ago. I have gone into that question pretty fully on other occasions when the Indian estimates have been before the House. My view generally has been that the establishment of further industrial schools should not be encouraged; because I found, on investigation shortly after I took office, that it was extremely problematical whether the results of the industrial schools were commensurate with the size of the expenditure upon them. I found, for instance, that boys and girls were in some cases kept in industrial schools until they were twenty-three or twenty-four years of age, and some of the officers of the department were afraid to let them out. I issued an order that no person should remain in an industrial school after the age of eighteen, and -the pupils who were above that age were got from the schools as quickly as possible, and placed according to the best judgment of the different agents. My view was that the money would be far better expended in giving; the Indian children a reasonable amount of education and civilization in ways by which a much larger number would be reached, than by concentrating the expenditure upon an alleged industrial education of a few. Therefore I have followed the policy of encouraging the establishment of boarding schools rather than industrial schools. The experience of the department has been that it is very difficult to get a satisfactory attendance at day schools. The children go back to their parents' homes, which are generally not of a very elevated character; they are very irregular in their attendance, and it is very difficult to improve them; although we have a considerable number of day schools where the circumstances do not warrant the establishment of boarding schools. But the policy ive have been following in recent years has been to establish boarding schools where the children are kept a much shorter time than they are at the industrial schools, and where the benefits are spread over a much larger number. It would not do to begin the policy of abolishing industrial schools, which have been establishsed at large expense, and where staffs have been appointed and equipment provided. I would not take the responsibility of recommending that these schools be adandoned or dismantled; but I have taken the responsibility of say-

ing that X would not encourage the establishment of further industrial schools. The effect of Indian education, in Manitoba and the North-west Territories, has been excellent. It has made a distinct improvement in the general tone of the Indians. I am satisfied that my hon. friend would receive testimony from those who live in the neighbourhood of the reserves that there is a vast difference between the Indians of the North-west now and the Indians of the North-west twenty or twenty-five years ago. At the present time the Indians are a comparatively civilized lot of people. I do not know that there is anything special to be said in regard to the work in British Columbia, except this, that the Indians of British Columbia originally were a much more turbulent lot of Indians than those in other portions of the country, especially those towards Fort Simpson and other parts of the North-west coast; and the fact that they are now a comparatively orderly and civilized community is largely due to the establishment by missionaries of mission stations and the establishment of industrial and other schools among them. Some years ago I visited Fort Simpson, where I saw an Indian village which no person at a little distance would imagine to be an Indian village, because it had all the characteristics of a respectable village of white people. I visited one house where an Indian who fifteen or twenty years before would have been a savage, occupied a comfortable little cottage with a sitting room which was carpeted and furnished with an organ and with other evidences of civilization. At Metlakatla we have had a considerable expenditure from time to time; but the agent there has had a very large band of Indians to look after. There too, I think the civilization of the Indians has proceeded at a very rapid rate. While the Indians of the northern portion of British Columbia were originally as much more savage and turbulent race than the Indians of other portions of Canada, yet they have had this other characteristic, that when they have adopted the ways of civilization, they have become much more like white men than the Indians of other parts of the country. There is a distinct difference between the Indian of British Columbia and the Indian of the North-west Territories. The Indian of British Columbia will go into the pit and the field and work at day's labour, while it is impossible to get the Indian of the Northwest Territories to do that. Many of the Indians of British Columbia are very comfortably off, and their villages are quite prosperous. The impression I derived from a trip which I made to British Columbia some years ago was that there was no part of Canada where the expenditure of the government in assisting the different churches and in carrying on educational work among the Indians has been productive of more beneficial results.


Thomas Inkerman Thomson: I would like to ask the minister some further questions regarding travelling expenses, for which I think the amount charged is very large in proportion to the whole. In the Auditor General's Report for 1902, at page J

73, I find the following .


Travel.  A. W.@: Viowell; board and lodging, $148.50 ; cabs and porters, $30 ; barbers and laundry, $2.65; ferriage and street cars, $4.70; fares, $101.90 ; pullmans, $39.75 ; livery and horse hire, $99 ; hire of launch, one day, $10.
I do not know whether this is some ambassador travelling in state, or an ordinary agent of the department; but from the expense account he sends in, he must be a man of considerable importance. $5,600 out of $137,000, is a large proportion for travelling expenses, and I would like the hon. minister to give some explanation.


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: I do not see that I can give any more explanation than is to be found in the Auditor General's Report. Mr. Yowell is the general superintendent of tbe Indian Department in British Columbia, and the items given are his ordinary travelling expenses. I do not know that the details are specially objectionable, except the item for cab-hire; and as the particulars of this item are not given in the Auditor General's Report, I cannot say whether it is excessive or not. All the items were passed by the accountant of the department and subsequently by the Auditor General's officers, and I have no doubt the charges are proper.


Thomas Earle: I may say in connection with the expenditure of our agents in British Columbia, that if my hon. friend were to go to that province and take a trip up the northern coast a thousand miles or so, he would find that his expenses would amount to very much more. Travelling in British Columbia is quite different from travelling in the North-west Territories and tbe eastern provinces. The hotel, wayside house expenses, horse-hire, &c., in these interior districts are very heavy. Take a trip to Cassiar, and you will find that you will have to pay very much more there to hire a horse than you would east, and you cannot expect the agent to walk. As far as Mr. Vowell is concerned, I am satisfied he does not travel in state. He goes by himself, does not take an attendant, and makes his trips as speedily as possible. I am satisfied, if my bon. friend had the details, that he would find they are not excessive, taking into account the condition of things in that country.


Thomas Inkerman Thomson: I can understand portaging over a rough country, but how does the hon. gentleman account for street cars. Let me read another account, that of one F. Devlin. I suppose he is an Irishman, and they always travel well. He

charges board and lodging $205.90 ; provisions, $25.05; hire of boats, canoes and men, $51.80 ; fares, $91.50 ; electric car fares, $54.40; cartage, $11.50; ferriage, $3.80; livery and horse-hire, $38.50; stage, $9.50; sundries, $3.75; total, $495.70. I would like my bon. friend to explain liow Mr. Devlin works up electric cars to $54.95 in that country. I did not know that they had any.


Thomas Earle: I may say, for the information of the bon. gentleman, that wo had electric cars in British Columbia before they had them in eastern Canada.


The MINISTER OP THE INTERIOR.: The items which my hon. friend read are the ordinary travelling expenses of the agent, and I do not see anything objectionable in them. The agent has considerable distances to travel. He charges up the actual items. His charge for provisions is $25.25. If my hon. friend had to travel in a canoe, he would have to bring provisions with him. You cannot go long distances in canoes unless you buy provisions before starting. The item for fares is $91.50. Let me tell my hon. friend that if any officer of my department charges an item of fare which was not justified by the distances he had to travel, it would be impossible for that item to pass the Auditor General's office. If he were to charge for fifty miles of travel, which he did not actually do, an order for an explanation would come from the Auditor General's office at once.


Thomas Inkerman Thomson: It is very refreshing to hear the hon. Minister of the Interior lecture this side of the House on criticising the item of electric car fares in British Columbia by the Indian agent, and especially to hear the cheers of gentlemen opposite over the remarks made by the hon. minister. If we go back a few years we will find that these very men took to task no less a man than the Rt. Hon. Sir John Macdonald because he had charged up a couple of dollars for cab-hire. When these hon. gentlemen find fault with our criticisms, I would ask them to look up their own history, of which they ought to be ashamed.


Thomas Earle: I would like to ask the hon. minister if anything has been done with regard to the re-allotment or the Indian reserves ? The greater portion of the Indian reserves, especially on Vancouver Island, are the very choicest land. Several of them are several thousand acres in extent, and the Indians cultivate only a few acres, having taken to other occupations for a livelihood. I think that the provincial government brought this matter to the attention of the Department of Indian Affairs.


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: Tlie question as to the re-allotment was up last year. In the month of January 1 Mr. THOMSON TNorth Grey).
brought Mr. Vo well over from British Columbia and discussed it with him very fully. The question was brought up upon the request of Col. Prior, then Prime Minister of British Columbia, and the Attorney General of his government. They took the position that a re-allotment was necessary. I said I could do nothing without the advice of my officers in British Columbia. And I sent for Mr. Vowell, who came over. I discussed the question with him very fully. The report was adverse to action being taken at the present time, and no action has been taken since. Just the other day I received a letter from either the Prime Minister or the Attorney General of British Columbia asking me what had been done in connection with that. 1 advised him that Mr. Vowell's report was adverse, but I presume the next step will be for Mr. Vowell to discuss the matter with them there.


Thomas Earle: Did Mr. Vowell consider the same quantity was required for the Indians as was given some years ago ?


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: I would not say that Mr. Vowell distinctly said in his report that there should never be any change; but his report was against taking any steps at that time. And the report was sent to me, and I discussed it with him verbally. I remember being impressed with the idea that his judgment was correct and that no action should be taken. I may say that I have a great deal of confidence in Mr. Vowell's judgment, I have found, since coming into office, that Mr. Vowell is a very capable officer and a man of very good judgment. If he has a fault it is that he stands up for the Indians to the utmost limit. And, possibly in a matter of this kind where the question of the Indian reserves being somewhat taken from arose, it might be that he was a little prejudiced. At the same time, as he is the chief officer in British Columbia on whose advice I must rely, my hon. friend will see that under the circumstances I can do nothing but accept his report at least for the present.


Thomas Earle: There is another question, perhaps not quite in line with the item before us, but which I would like to get some information about as it comes to my mind. There was an investigation made last year by Mr. Vowell, and, I think. Senator Templeman and Mr. Sword, in regard to the fishing by the Indians in the inland rivers. I inquired of- the Minister of Marine and Fisheries with regard to this matter, and he told me that he knew nothing of the commission and thought that possibly the report had been sent to the Indian Department, as Mr. Vowell was chairman of the committee. I have had inquiries from the Tourists' Association who are taking considerable interest in the sport-

ing fishing on the island as to what had been done with the report, and whether any action had been taken.


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: The investigation has been the subject of a report, the substance of which is that the difficulty that has occurred is of a very slight character and should be left, as far as possible, to the local agents to settle. The difficulty involves two departments, Marine and Fisheries, and my own acting for the Indians. My hon. friend (Mr. Earle) will understand that it is easier to get into trouble with Indians than to get out of it, and while they must be treated with firmness, yet, in a matter of that kind, where they believe their fishing rights to be involved, the question must be treated with delicacy and care. Mr. Vowel! and Senator Templeman looked into it and reported that it would be better not to make a general order, but to leave the matter to be worked out locally by the agents of the different places where the difficulty occurs.


Thomas Earle: Is the Indian agent in a position to deal with the fishing. Or must that be dealt with by the Marine and Fisheries Department ?


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: The agent has practical control of the operations of the Indians. He cannot act on behalf of the Department of Marine and Fisheries, but as the difficulty is the interference by the Indians with the fishing, the agent, practically controlling what the Indians do, is in a position to deal with the difficulty.


Thomas Earle: The difficulty is that the Indians do not regard the fishing regulations for instance, on the Cowiehan river. The Indian agent could not make regulations by which they could fish. Evidence was taken before the Fish Commission in Victoria. But, unfortunately, the results were not reported to us until yesterday, and then only in the form of a naked report. Evidence was given by Indians brought down by Mr. Robertson, the agent thei'e, but, we do not know what that evidence was. It would appear that the Indians were fishing on these rivers by their old fashioned methods, which are destructive and which obstruct the fish altogether. In consequence of the danger of getting into trouble with the Indians, the Marine and Fisheries Department have not taken any action.
The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR, If I recollect aright the Indians build a weir across the river. When the Department of Marine and Fisheries was notified of this, they sent the correspondence to me, and I called upon Mr. Vowell for a report. The substance of his report was that it would not be wise to take violent action or to insist on the weir being taken away for the present. It will be possible to get over 228
the difficulty in time, but, under the circumstances, it would be better not to take too violent action at present.


Thomas Earle: I think there is no disposition on the part of the people to raise difficulties with the Indians. But I notice that the Tourists' Association, who are making great efforts to induce people travelling through the country to visit British Columbia, are taking a great interest in the matter and are arranging to build fish ladders and so on at their individual expense. If a regulation could be made without affecting the Indians too seriously, it would be advisable for the department to take action in the matter.


Richard Blain: I find in the Auditor General's Report a pretty large item in connection with the Indian Department in British Columbia. It is charged to surveys and reserve commission. Would the hon. minister give us some explanation of that ?


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: An arrangement was made some years ago- at that time when British Columbia entered confederation I think-as to the reserves that should be set apart for the Indians. There was a very large number of reserves in different parts of the province. A commission was appointed, or provided for at that time, to organize survey parties to survey these, reserves. The work has been going on since, but it has not been completed and will not be completed for many years. We do not survey all the reserves, but only those required. There are three or four surveys to be made during the coming year. Mr. Vowell acts as superintendent of the commission and directs the work. He reports that next year we will need to survey three reserves on the Skeeua river, Fort Rupert, Katlatka, Chilcotin and Pemberton Meadows. There are several other places where surveys have been asked for, and he may call for them to be made. He asks for $5,000 to pay the expenses. There are three or four other places where surveys are asked for, and where we will probably cause surveys to be made. We ask for a vote of $5,000 to pay the expenses.


Richard Blain: What is the expenditure for the commission?


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: There was a commission appointed consisting of three men, but we have not found it necessary to preserve the scale of expense on which the work was done a year ago.


Mr. GALLIHER.: Since this matter of the Indian reserve has come up for discussion, introduced by my hon. friend from Victoria, B.C., (Mr. Earle), I will take the opportunity to draw the attention of the minister to a request that has been made to me as representing a district In British Columbia. A number of settlers living at Agassiz have represented to me that there is a reserve near

there to which only a very few families of Indians belong. There are only a few families living on it at all, and these families for the most part of the year are off the reserve entirely, living with relatives on other reserves. The reserve in question is a considerable tract of land, and very rich agriculturally, and their desire is that it should be thrown open for sale. Now the same proposition was made to me by some residents of Salmon Arm with regard to a reserve there. Still another request was made to me with regard to some reserve in the Similkameen. They request tl^at some readjustment be made by which these reserves should be thrown open for purchase by white settlers. The reasons they give are that there are only a few Indians there, and for the most part they live with tribes on other reserves. With regard to the request made from Similkameen, the reason given is that there are valuable deposits of precious minerals on some of these reserves, and they want the privilege of entering upon them for the purpose of prospecting- and locating mineral claims, and working them in the ordinary way. I draw these matters to the attention of the minister, because I have been requested to do so by some of my constituents.


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: The ease which my hon. friend from Yale and Cariboo .(Mr. Galliher) has brought up, is a common case in connection with the administration of Indian affairs, and arises from the natural feeling in human nature which causes one man sometimes to covet his neighbour's goods ; and a white man, finding the Indian owns a very valuable land, sometimes covets that land. We have throughout Canada a large number of such cases such as that to which the hon. gentleman refers. We have cases of fertile lands on Indian reserves which the Indians do not in reality occupy or cultivate in a bona fide way, and which they positively refuse to give up. Let me say to my hon. friend! that all the Indian reserves in Canada have from time to time been set apart by treaty. It is not a temporary arrangement made by the grace of the Crown for the benefit of the Indians, but it is a solemn treaty made by the Crown with the Indians under which these reserves have been set apart, and the faith of the Crown is pledged that the title of the Indians to these reserves shall not be disturbed. There is only one way under the law as it stands at present that Indian lands can be set apart for sale. They cannot be set apart for homestead entry under any circumstances unless the government desire to pay for them ; but they can be set apart for sale by the department in trust for the Indians, upon a foriBal surrender being executed. It does not make any difference whether the reserve is occupied or not. Outside the province of British Columbia there is no qualification to the Mr. GALLIHER.
statement that the only way in which a reserve can be put up for sale or opened for settlement is by a formal surrender being executed by the Indians voluntarily. So far as British Columbia is concerned there is some qualification to that statement, because the title to the ludiau reserves is somewhat different from the others. That qualification is that if, on a general recasting of the allotment of an Indian reserve in British Columbia, by the authority provided in the original arrangement, it was found that these reserves were not required, then they might be thrown open. But we could not goi to one particular reserve and say : We are going to throw that open. That would clearly be a violation of the arrangement. As matters stand at present, the only way in which these reserves can be thrown open for sale would be by getting a surrender from the Indians. Any time the Indians are willing to surrender, it could be sold to the highest bidder.


William Alfred Galliher: These requests came to me in respect of reserves where, as I said, there were very few Indians living at anytime of the year. I have had no such request from any source such as William's Lake, a reserve that I visited myself ; or such as the reserve in the vicinity of Armstrong, where the Indians are themselves very good settlers indeed, and raise hay and grain, and market it the same as white men. They have industrial schools, and make shoes, and are educated in trades. I have no requests in respect of these. But the people who made these requests to me say that the reserves in question are practically useless to the Indians, because they do not occupy them, and it would be greatly in the interest of filling up the country and making a good agricultural district of what is now useless both to the white man and to the Indian. I appreciate what the minister has said, that you cannot deal1 with one parcel at a time, that you have to make a general reallotment if you deal with it at all. I think there should be some inquiry made into this question in the interest of settling up that portion of the country, and putting there a class of farmers who will cultivate the soil which is really at present of no benefit at all to the Indians. If this land were sold, it would provide a fund that would be of benefit to the Indians, and the settlers would be prepared to pay for the land.


Thomas Earle: I would ask the minister if these reserves are in the same position as the one at Victoria, whereby the lands alienated by the Indians have reverted to the Crown ?


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: According to my recollection they are all in the same position. Of course, that suggests a further difficulty, which did not occur to me when I was answering my hon. friend which has arisen in connection with

similar matters. Before we can deal with the land at all we shall have to make an arrangement with the provincial government and deal with it jointly because they have a reversionary title.


Richard Blain: In regard to the item of $5,000 for surveys I would like some more information. If I understand the hon. minister correctly he makes a statement that the population of the Indians of British Columbia is about stationary, that it is about 25,000 and that it has been the same for the last ten years.	Why is it necessary
to spend $5,000 for surveying more territory particularly as the hon. minister states that the Indians do not take to farming ? The hon. member for Yale-Cariboo {Mr. Galliher) says that there is a large quantity of land which is only very sparsely settled by Indians.


William Alfred Galliher: The ranchers in that
district want these surveys.


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: We are under obligation to make surveys as they are required and as my hon. friend will readily see as the province of British Columbia settles up and as the white population spreads over the country the Indiaus demand that the reserves should be surveyed and allotted to them so that they can be separate from the rest of the community and feel that they are protected. We are proceeding with these surveys from time to time, not too fast, but just as they are demanded.


Thomas Inkerman Thomson: Would the hon. minister say how much land would be surveyed for $5,000-how many thousand acres ?


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: I could not gfre the hon. gentleman the exact information as to how much would be surveyed because it depends upon a great many things. If the surveyors have to travel up to the Skeena river a good deal of the vote will be expended in travelling expenses, in getting ready to go and in that sort of thing. The Skeena river district is one of the places where a survey will be made this year. They have to procure their passage there and pay all the expenses and the actual work of running the line would not probably amount to very much.


Thomas Earle: There is one more matter I desire to bring to the attention of the hon. minister before this item passes and that is the work of the Bishop Christie school at Clayoquot. Could the hon. minister give me the attendance at that school ? My reason for asking is that I had a letter from Archbishop Orth in reference to it. and from my own knowledge of the school I know that an excellent work is being done there. They have spent a very large amount of money of their own and if they are to carry on the 228A
work they ought to have some additional assistance.


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: The Clayoquot school is a boarding school. The total enrolment is fifty-two, and the average attendance, forty-eight.


Thomas Earle: The average attendance is now some where in the neighbourhood of sixty, and in addition to that they will be able to take in more children than they have at present if they had the means. As far as the work is concerned I expect the department have had a report from their agent in regard to it. It is wonderful what they have done. This is a district I know very well. Some four or five years ago when they took hold of this school there had nothing been done amongst that large tribe of Indians in the way of educating or training them in any shape or form. They now teach industries in the school as well as teaching the Indian boys and girls how to read and write. There are quite a number of boys who are doing carpenter work and making and mending shoes, and there are girls who are knitting socks and doing housework and needlework. This school is doing a most commendable work but those in charge of it feel that if it is to be as successful as they wish it is necessary that they should get further assistance from the government.


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: We are providing some additional assistance for that school in the supplementary estimates.
Yukon Territory-relief of destitute Indians and medical attendance, $5,000 ; to promote the education of the Indians in the territory, $5,000, $10,000.


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: As I explained to the House last year, we have to make a beginning in connection with the work of looking after the Indians of the Yukon territory and we are taking these small votes for the purpose of doing so. The number of Indians actually located in the Yukon, as reported, is 702. Accounts have come forward for the expenditure for relief of distressed Indians and medical at tendance amounting to over $2,700. As far as the medical attendance is concerned, the committee will understand that this is extremely expensive. You cannot pay salaries at the price that medical officers require in that country, and consequently we have to pay them ordinary rates for visits when made. We shall probably have to expend the whole of this $5,000. The other $5,000 for education we are proposing to hold for the purpose of assisting in any missionary enterprise which any of the churches may engage in amongst the Indians. We have not yet definitely appropriated it one way or the other.
Mr. SPROL'LE. You had $5,000 last year. Did you expend any of it, and if so, how ?


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: We have spent nothing out of the moneys that were voted for school purposes last year. We have spent a considerable portion of the amount voted for relief: in fact I think we have exceeded the vote, and we will take a supplementary estimate to cover the excess. -


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I notice in this case that you do not do the same as you do in regard to public works. You have money voted for one year and do not spend it that year and do not revote it for the next year but allow it to drop, so that, of course, we cannot tell by reference to the estimates whether there has been any money spent or not.


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: This vote is for 1903-4.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I know. But if there was a vote for public works which was not spent, you would say so much revoted, 'but here you let the item drop and put in the same amount.
The	MINISTER	OF	THE	INTERIOR.
Accounts have been rendered so far for last year for $2,700.
Mr.	SPROULE.	You	only	spent $2,700
last year, and now you want $10,000.
The	MINISTER	OF	THE	INTERIOR.
We spent nothing for education last year.


Mr. MONK.: I understand this is for a band of 700 Indians. Are they increasing in number ?
The	MINISTER	OF	THE	INTERIOR.
This is not a band. According to our reports, which are not very full, there are 702 Indians in the Yukon, but they are constantly moving. I do not think we will find that $5,000 is too much.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: It is not so much the amount as that it is five times what you asked last year for these Indians. They seem to have got along very well before we established government in the Yukon, and although I have no objection that we should assist them to a certain extent, yet it may be that if the assistance goes on increasing it would induce them to a life of idleness.


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: We cannot be accused of being over generous with the Indians in that territory, at least so far. The policy which the government of Canada has very wisely adopted has been that wherever they went into a country where there was an Indian population they would treat them with humanity and with a reasonable degree of liberality, and on the whole that is a most economical policy. We took a vote last year for $1,000, and we put it in the hands of the commissioner for the district to do what he thought wise with it, and it was distributed through the officer of the government. When these estimates were prepared last January we Mr. SPROULE.
had accounts for $2,700, and for the year altogether we will have $6,000 or $7,000, so that if we get along with $5,000 next year we will have to exercise considerable care. I do not think the hon. gentleman would say that, having taken possession of that territory, we should do nothing at all for the education of the Indians there. We intend to follow, as nearly as we can, the policy which has been followed in other parts of Canada, and if the churches do any missionary work we intend to give them a little assistance. There is no probability of any rapid growth of this expenditure.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: What form does the relief take ?


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: The relief is altogether distributed through the mounted police officers.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: How much has been expended on medical attendance ? Are ihe physicians paid by fees, or how are they paid ?


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: I have not the amounts separated that were paid for relief and for medical attendance, but, of course, I can get it to-morrow.


Thomas Inkerman Thomson: I will read some accounts from the Auditor General's Report, page J-61, which will explain to the hon. gentleman (Mr. Monk) where the money goes :
Expenses of H. A. Conroy, paying annuities, with Dr. Hislop and clerk, December and January, 1901-2 : H. B. Round, clerk, 2m., $150 ; A. Kennedy, cook, 46 d., $61.33 ; ammunition, $6.65; bags, tent poles, &c., $6.25 ; boat cover, $5 ; camp cook stove, $10 ; camp heater, $4 ; coal oil, $2.25 ; eider-down robes, 3, $75 ; goat robes, 4. $38 ; kettles, $7 ; leather trunk, $28 ; liquor permit, $2.50 ; mattresses, sectional, 3, $18 ; mitts, 5 pr., $2.75 ; mocassins, 1 pr., $1.25 ; overcoat and cap for H. B. Round, $12 ; pillow's, 2, $4 ; postage, $3 ; robes, $2.50 ; rope, 38 lbs., $7.16; sleds, flat, 5, $26.50 ; snow-shoes, $6 ; table linen and towels, $7.77 ; tent, with fly and ground sheet, $39.25; tools and hardware, $18.70; valises, 2. $4.50 ; board and lodging, $193.60 ; extra baggage, $21.05 ; fares, $143 ; gratuities to Indians, $7 ; hay and oats, $9.75 ; hire of bob-sleigh, $8 ; interpreters, $14 ; laundry, $10.35 ; livery and cartage, $18 ; messengers, &c., $10 ; provisions, $213.03 ; pulilmans, $29 ; road makers, $37 ; stabling, $7.50 ; telegrams, $7.38 ; tips, $3 ; use of houses. $13.50 ; washing blankets, $7 ; O. Bel-rose. transport, 4 d. at $10, 40 d. at $12 ; Dr. Hislop, expenses to Winnipeg, $47 ; small items, $1.10, $1,869.62.
lH. A. Conroy : board at Ottawa, $86 ; cabs and transfers, $6.60 ; 2 trips, Ottawa to Montreal, $30.50 ; 13 trips, Ottawa to Maxville, $36.40, $159.50.
H. A. Conroy, advances for expenses seasou of 1902, $3,691.88.
That will give you an idea of how this money was expended.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: It is a question whether the Indians travel at our expense or whether it is the physicians. My hon. friend (Mr. Thomson) has given us an insight to this

expenditure which is a little strange. Who are the physicians, and how are they paid ?


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: We make use of the services of the physicians to the Mounted Police in the Yukon territory, and pay them the ordinary rate paid to medical men. We tried to establish a lower rate, a fee of $2 a visit, but it was wholly unsuccessful, because the jnedieal men declined to attend the Indians unless they got a regular rate. As to my hon. friend's question respecting the expenses of Inspector Conroy, he is the officer who pays the Indian annuities in the far northern district, in what is known as Treaty No. 8. About four years ago we made a treaty with the Indians in that district. At that time, owing to the movement of population in the district, the Indians were becoming very restless and turbulent, as Indians do when no arrangement has been made for a transfer of title. We sent a commissioner to make a treaty with them, and he made a treaty, with the result that since that time they have been quiet and there has been no trouble with them. Under that treaty the officer had to pay them $20,000, and to take a medical officer with him. One of the things the Indians stipulated for was that a medical officer should be sent out with the officer who went to pay the money, in order to treat any Indians suffering from any serious disease who came to him for treatment. The officer had to take all the measures necessary to make a trip of 750 miles north, beyond a railway. The expenses are necessarily very heavy, and I think Mr. Conroy's expenses have been kept down to a figure which under all the circumstances is very small and very creditable to him. At the time the matter came before me, I was agreeably surprised at the amount of this bill. Previous to that another officer of the department, Inspector McCrae, went from headquarters and made the payment ; but after that year I decided to send Inspector Conroy, and his services so far have been very satisfactory. I do not think it would be possible for him to make the trip at any less expense.


Thomas Inkerman Thomson: I would like
to call the minister's attention to the item of $3 for tips.


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: I think my hon. friend will have to let that go without any explanation. It is remarkably small, according to my experience.


Mr.   THOSISON@Grey: Perhaps the
minister will give us his experience of his trip to Europe.


The SIINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: 1 have not the details.


George Taylor: Why did Sir. Conroy require to make thirteen trips to Maxville at an expense to the country of $36 ?


The SIINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: I am informed that Inspector Conroy, while here, was allowed by the deputy of the department to go on Saturday and come back on Slonday, and that his railway fare was paid by arrangement with the department. It is a question whether it would not have cost more to pay his board in Ottawa. I suppose it would amount to about the same thing.


Sir.   THOSISON@North Grey: I see lie made two trips to Slontreal, for which he charges the department $30.50. Was that to save his board here, or to give him a trip?	.


The SIINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: That was to buy supplies for his trip.


Richard Blain: I notice an item under this head of $5,000 for education. I understand that there are about 700 Indians in the Yukon district. Will the minister state how many are going to school, and what the qualification for teachers is ?


The SIINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: At present there are four schools in the Yukon district for Indians. They are all carried on by the missionaries of the Church of England. There are 94 children on the roll and an average attendance of 45. Special teachers have been appointed at Cariboo, while at the other places the missionaries attend to the teaching. There is nothing decided in regard to our policy as to these schools; but we intend to try to pursue the same policy there as in other places


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I see that we have had a physician in the Yukon district at $2 a day- Dr. Hurdman. Under Treaty No. 8, I understand from the Auditor General's Report, at page J-172, that we paid $4,066.5S to the Indians. That would seem to be the amount we are bound to pay them under the treaty. This Sir. Conroy is a most expensive plenipotentiary to the Indians, because it has evidently cost us a larger amount to pay him than to discharge our obligations to the Indians. Sir. Conroy received in nine months $1,350 of salary, and his travelling expenses, which are detailed at page J-61, amounted to about $5,000. They certainly appear for a very large amount in the Auditor General's Report for 1902. What with eiderdown quilts, mattresses, valises, leather trunks, moccasins, fur coats and other things, it would be better for us to employ an honest Indian than Mr. Conroy.


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: If my hon. friend would look at J-58, he will find that the annuities amount to $25,000, and he is directing his attention to the salaries and not to the annuities.
Grant to recoup the local council of the Yukon Territory for expenditure incurred in connection with Eldorado Gusher, ?50,000.


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: When this item came up some days ago, it was suggested that it should be left over until the hon. member for the Yukon (Mr. Ross) was here. Mr. Ross is in the city but his health will not permit him to take part in any discussion. Hon. members are aware that last year he had a stroke of paralysis and has been endeavouring to regain health ever since. It would be wholly impossible for him to take part in any discussion.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I regret to hear that Mr. Ross is unable through illness to attend. In that connection I would ask my hon. friend if there is any truth in the newspaper report to the effect that he intends resigning his seat and is to be named lieutenant governor of the North-west Territories V


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: There is no truth whatever in any statement that any change is contemplated, so far as the government is aware.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: The items which follow this item of $50,000 will give rise to some discussion. I would suggest either to leave the items concerning the government of the Yukon Territories stand, or vote this $50,000 and hold over the others.


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: My hon. friend will understand that, so falas discussion on the general expenditure is concerned, there will be items in the further supplementaries for this service which my hon. friends can discuss. It is not desirable to leave over items in respect of sums which are desired to be available. The government will have to bring in a Supply Bill at an early date, and it is not satisfactory to have one or two items standing. This particular expenditure was wholly unforeseen. Two or three miners in Eldorado creek undertook to put down a shaft. Their idea was that below what they believed to be bed rock, they would find a layer of pay gravel. They put a shaft down and struck what appeared to be a never ending flow of water. It was in the winter. The water came in in an enormous quantity and threatened to form a glacier which would fill the whole valley and do incalculable damage. It would cover the pay gravel with ice, and it was feared that it would not thaw in the summer. I authorized the local council to spend whatever was necessary to plug up the hole and prevent the flow of water. They engaged gangs of men and succeeded in blocking it up, but it broke open again. Finally, after much labour and expense they got the flow under control. The expenses are about $50,000. After these expenses had been incurred, the parties who had sunk the shaft applied for a franchise to be allowed to sell the water for mining purposes. I exacted from them an agreement that they would pay the government ten Hon. Mr SIFTON.
per cent of the amount they got by the sale of water for the purpose of recouping the government for its expenditure. The money I am asking is to recoup the council for the expenditure they have incurred in this connection.


Thomas Inkerman Thomson: What sort of a hole was it which cost $50,000 to block ? Are there any more holes to block there ?


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: I do not know the exact dimensions but everybody in the district was crying out to have the flow of water stopped.


Matthew Henry Cochrane: What time did the plugging of the hole occur ?


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: The work was going on for two or three months prior to March this year. They did not get the whole thing undw control until March.


Matthew Henry Cochrane: When did it begin ?


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: About December-after the election.


Matthew Henry Cochrane: I would like the hon. minister to verify his statement regarding the time. At what time was the election ?


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: I have not any means of verifying that statement now.


Richard Blain: Did the Yukon government, which had charge of this expenditure, furnish any detailed statement to the department ?


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: Yes. They show items for labour, $4,717.49, $25,S33.09, $1,372.50 $1,331.75. They show that they paid for wood for the boilers using steam in the ditch $635, $5,341.25, $105. They paid for the contract which they gave for plugging the shaft in the first place, $6,3(7.40, $1,S43.S2 ; also, supplies, and small accounts.


Thomas Inkerman Thomson: Was this for plugging a hole or making a hole ?


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: This is for plugging a hole in the first place and afterwards making the ditches to iet the water off.


Thomas Inkerman Thomson: Was it a political hole ?


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: I do not think so ?


Haughton Lennox: The minister mentions that there was an item of $6,000 to a man named Matheson as a contract price for doing this work. Though that contract was let and the work paid for, we yet have these other items including $4,000 for labour. There will have to be some explanation of the reasons for expending all this money outside of the contract.


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: The flow of water broke out again.


Haughton Lennox: Then, the contractor did not perform his contract. The contract must have been to do the work effectively. But we find that this work, which was to have been done under contract for $6,000, subsequently cost $44,000 besides that amount of the contract.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I should suggest that this contractor was not quite as good an expert as the ballot stuffers they had in West Elgin and Huron.


Mr. BENNETT.: Does the hon. minister offer no explanation ?


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: I do not think I have any except'what I have already given. My information is that they let a contract to Matheson to plug up the shaft, which he did. But it afterwards broke loose again, and they had to take tlie work into their own hands. My hon. friend will understand that it was very difficult work to do. The flow of water was very violent, and appliances which might have been got in such a country as we are situated in, were not available there. They had great difficulty in getting anybody to take the work in connection with it. There was a great deal of alarm as to the possible consequences ; and I felt that the only thing I could do was to authorize the Yukon Council to do whatever might be necessary and to incur any expense that it might be necessary to incur.


Haughton Lennox: We can understand-or rather we can imagine-that, as the hon. minister suggests, it was a work of very great difficulty. But we have to take it as a matter of imagination. The only support we have for opinion is the amount expended, for the minister is not able to give us any information upon which to form an opinion. It may be quite true that the money was properly and necessarily expended. But we have no means at the present time of judging of it. He is not able to tell us anything of the nature of the work executed. This is spoken of as a shaft. If it is a shaft in the ordinary acceptation of that term in mining, I suppose, it to be of considerable size. I suppose the minister could not tell us the size, but perhaps he could tell us whether it was really a shaft or an ordinary boring.


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: It is a miners' shaft.


Haughton Lennox: I would suggest to the hon. minister that he should not ask us to deal with this item until he can give us some reasonable information to enable us to judge whether the expenditure is right or not. Before I sit down there is one point on which the minister perhaps can give us some information. It was mentioned that the man who caused the original difficulty
proposed to get control of this flow of water for the purpose of furnishing water to miners, he to pay a royalty of 10 per cent. Has there been as yet any income derived by the government to recoup or liquidate the expenditure incurred V


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: The arrangement was only made in March of this year.


Haughton Lennox: Will the minister inform the committee as to the basis on which the 10 per cent is calculated, and what probability there is as to the recovery of this $50,000 within a reasonable time on this basis V


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: I do not think I can give any explanation further than I have given. I authorized the Yukon Council to take the matter in hand. They did so by letting a contract, but the shaft broke out again, and they proceeded to do what they thought necessary under the circumstances, and what turned out to be successful. They sent a bill of $50,000 and, as the expenditure was incurred with our authorization, there was nothing for us to do but to pay it.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: This is a peculiar item, and we are entitled to more information. Here is a man who digs a hole. We do not know who he is or whether he is solvent or not. He occasions this extraordinary outflow of water and the people of the Dominion are called upon to spend $50,000 to close up the hole. And now we are told that certain parties are going to unplug that hole and make a lot of money by using the flow of water. Is the man who is going to do this the same man who bored the hole in the first instance ? As my hon. friend (Mr. Lennox) said, we ought to be given more details of the expenditure. We ought to know, in the first instance, the name of the man who sunk the shaft and whether he is solvent. He is the party primarily responsible for this money and the damage he has caused. Where has he gone ? Has any recourse been exercised against him ? And who is the man, now that the hole has been plugged and replugged who is going to unplug it and carry on this very profitable business ? And what are we to get out of it ? The item is so new, so novel, so original, that we should be made acquainted with the details. I think the hon. gentleman had better leave it in abeyance until he has some more information to give us.


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: The man who dug the shaft was Mr. A. R. Thompson, No. 3, Eldorado Creek. The shaft was not sunk for finding water, but in the ordinary way for finding gold and they found the water by accident. It was just a case of something happening which would have caused irreparable damage if the government had not interfered. As to whether we have a right to recover from

Mr. Thompson, I would not express a definite opinion. I doubt it. He asked for a franchise to make use of the water, he himself proposing the condition that he should pay a percentage. I do not think there is the least doubt but that the government did, under the circumstances, what was the proper thing to do. If the hon. member for Jacques Cartier had received a telegram that this accident had occurred and this damage was being done, he would have done what I did, and later on would have come to parliament and asked for a vote of money. I do not think anybody would have acted differently under the circumstances. This flow of water, if no action had been taken, would have done an irreparable damage by flooding mining lands, and in that very severe climate when the water would have frozen, it would have formed an immense mass of ice, with the result that mining operations could not have been carried on in the spring, and practically the whole industry would have been destroyed for the next season.


Haughton Lennox: The minister thinks that probably some hon. gentlemen on this side of the House would have done the same as he did, and perhaps they would to some extent. We have a statement from these gentlemen who were delegated to perform the work, but I think we should have that statement more in detail. It begins with an item of $4,000 for labour. That does not appear to me to be sufficient information. The item in itself is not large, but it is of a class which should not be recognized in dealing with public money. The same remark applies to items running all through these estimates. Referring again to what the minister said about this question of the 10 per cent-there would be no object in making the arrangement unless the minister had some calculation as to what the result would be. He enters into an arrangement with the man who caused the injury in the first place. It may be assumed that there is a possibility that the difficulty which happened may happen again. I think we ought to have some information as to why it was considered advisable to enter into that arrangement, and whether it was with the idea that this $50,000, or a portion of it, would be recouped.


The MINISTER OE THE INTERIOR.: I do not think I could give any more information than I have given. I do not know whether the government Will be recouped to any extent or not. We thought that, inasmuch as we were asked for a franchise for the use of this water, and the flow of the water had caused considerable expenditure on our part, that it would be only right for us to levy a reasonable percentage on it for the purpose of getting recouped. One thing we do know, that the Yukon Council has expended this money for that purpose, and we have to pay it. They have sent us a Hon. Mr SIFTON.
detailed statement of the expenditure, showing the arrangements and what was paid to each man while the work was going on. The hon. gentleman will find that in the Auditor General's Report. In the meantime, I have given the total expenditure in the different classes.


Richard Blain: This accident, as I understand it, took place upon property that was owned by the government, and the government gave instructions to expend whatever money was necessary to protect that section of country from the overflow of water. My opinion is that the government should have held the property and sold it in some way by which they would have been able to get back the $50,000 expended. It seems to me they should not have given up to private parties the ownership of the property without having received the money they had expended upon it. Could the minister explain why he gave over the property without getting back the money expended upon it ?


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: The property in question is a creek which is subject to mining leases in the ordinary way, and under ordinary regulations. We have an interest in it to the extent that we receive a royalty on the gold taken out. The expenditure was incurred on public grounds, to prevent the destruction of the industry on that creek. We never had possession of the claim except for the purpose of doing this work. It would have been no advantage for us to take possession of it, because that would not have been any security for the money.


Mr. MORIN.: I hope the minister will excuse me if I ask some questions that perhaps he has already answered, because I was not in the House when this conversation took place. Would he tell me how deep that shaft was sunk ?


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: 222i feet.


Jean-Baptiste Morin: How wide was the shaft '! I suppose it was dug down in the usual way. Shafts of that kind are generally dug square down, 6 feet by 6 feet, or 8 feet by 8 feet, or 10 feet by 10 feet.


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: The ordinary size of a mining shaft is 3 to 4 feet square.


Jean-Baptiste Morin: In sinking the shaft, did you use a bucket with a windlass to hoist the material out, or did you use an engine ?


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: I will explain Fo my hon. friend. The shaft was put down upon a mining claim owned by a man named Thompson. He owned the claim and put down the shaft himself. He thought there was good bed-rock below where he had been mining, and that he would find more profitable gravel, but instead of that

he found a subterranean lake, which must have been in some parts higher than the surface of the ground. The water was forced up through the shaft in enormous quantities. It was in the early part of the winter, when the weather was extremely cold, and the result of this enormous flow of water was that it threatened to cover the whole valley with ice, so that it would be impossible in the spring to carry on mining operations. We were urged by the council of the Yukon Territory to authorize them to spend the money necessary to enable them to plug up the hole and stop the water from flowing. They let a contract to stop the water, and the flow was temporarily stopped, but afterwards the force of the water opened up the shaft again and they had to construct a canal to carry it off and prevent the ice from accumulating in the valley. That is the whole thing, and we have to pay the bill.


Jean-Baptiste Morin: I do not understand the hon. minister when he says that they plugged up the hole. There are times and places where the water is stopped by plugging up the hole, but I understand the hon. minister to say that they filled the shaft up. They did not plug up the hole; they just filled it up. Am I right or am I wrong ?


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: I do not know the details of the practical operations up there. I understand in the first place that they tried to plug it up by filling the shaft with bags of beans and pease and things of that kind, so that the swelling would cause the bags to become firm. This is an old method of stopping the flow of water in a well. They tried that at first, but they found it unsuccessful.


Jean-Baptiste Morin: That is not what is called in a mining district plugging up the hole. That is filling a shaft. I have seen work of that kind done. While sinking a shaft the miners struck what is called conglomerate rock and found a flow of water. They drilled through the rock with a diamond drill and found too much water and they did not fill up the shaft, but they plugged the hole with a piece of cedar. They drove a cedar plug into the hole, and then drove an iron pin into the cedar plug, and thus stopped the flow in that way. In the case of which the hon. minister speaks it was not plugging the hole, but filling the shaft. I think that in the way they went at it they made a mistake. Does the hon. minister know whether they went through frozen ground or loose ground, rock or slate?


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: Before they started to sink this shaft they were mining in what is usually to be considered as bed rock. But my hon. friend will probably know that in mining districts
they often find what is called false bed rock.


Jean-Baptiste Morin: That is what is called underground slide.


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: They expected that they would find bed rock farther down, and get better paying gravel, but instead of finding bed rock, they found a lake.


Jean-Baptiste Morin: They found what they call in a mining country an undisturbed stratum. Nevertheless, that was a very expensive work to cost $50,000.


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: I agree with my hon. friend.


Jean-Baptiste Morin: I have sunk shafts and worked in shafts and slate, coal, rock and clay, and from my knowledge of these things I can tell the hon. minister that the figure is altogether too high. This shaft was 3x4 feet square. Unless this work was done in conglomerate rock or frozen ground, the material could be dug for a dollar a foot.


George Taylor: It was not digging; it was filling.


Jean-Baptiste Morin: Filling would be done for a great deal less than that.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I would like to say one thing in connection with this matter. I have no doubt that the committee is somewhat disappointed in not being able to get the information from the hon. member who represents the district (Mr. Ross) that the committee anticipated getting. The hon. minister tells us to-night that the hon. member for the Yukon is unfortunatly laid up from illness and that he has never been well since he had a paralytic stroke a year ago. It seems to me that it does not reflect very great credit on the government that they should have compelled a man in his physical condition to contest that seat as their candidate, because they must have known, as any one would know, that a man in that condition is hardly the man to bear the strain that would be put upon him in going through a campaign there and then coming out here to represent the people of the Yukon. I do not think it is very creditable to the government, and it seems they must have found themselves in a peculiar position; otherwise they would not have been compelled to bring that hon. gentleman out as their candidate under those circumstances.


Robert Laird Borden: Ts there any correspondence which would throw any light on the subject ?


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: There is nothing that would show any more than I have stated to the committee. The Yukon council simply explained what had happened and asked for authority. I think

it happened nearly all by telegraph, and believing it was a case of absolute necessity I authorized them to go on. The work was done under the authority of the commissioner of the district, who was then Major Wood, of the Mounted Police, and the Yukon council. Of course, the accounts h'fve been audited by the controller of the district.


Robert Laird Borden: That does seem a very large amount for filling a shaft 3x4 feet square and 200 feet deep, although I suppose some of the expense was incurred in connection with the construction of the canal on a subsequent occasion. But, even taking that into consideration-, one would suppose that one-fifth of this amount would have done this work.
Grant to recoup the local council of the Yukon Territory for part of their outlay on roads and bridges during fiscal year 1902-3, $126,642.50.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: By what authority was this money expended by the Yukon council? This is to recoup the council for money expended. Where did they find the money and under what authority did they expend it ?


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: The Yukon council began the construction of a considerable number of roads with the funds at their disposal during last year. I may say before giving the details of the expenditure that the amount of their expenditure, whether from miscalculation or otherwise, rather exceeded the amount of their revenue, and they had at the end of the year a shortage of $126,000. The roads they constructed were as follows :-
Gold bottom road, extension, $4,337.84 ; Dominion wagon road, $4,010.72 ; lower Dominion sled road, $984.00 ; Henderson wagon road extension, $1,522.62; Lepine creek, winter road to Quartz mines, $2,770 ; Bear creek and Lovett Gulch road, $4,560 ; Last Chance wagon road, S40S.S2 ; Last Chance sled road, $2,799 ; Boucher creek sled road and pack trail, $4,683.79 ; Mayo bridge and trail Stewart river district, $1,795 ; Clear creek trail, $750 ; Eureka wagon road and Indian river bridge, $7,170.05 ; White Horse copper mines wagon road, $1,901.39 ; Livingstone creek wagon road, $1,449.42 ; surveying trail from White Horse to Mush creek Dalton trail, $672.83 ; Sulphur wagon road construction, $813.39 ; Dawson-White Horse road, $54,431.66 ; Sulphur sled road to Gold run, $996.42 ; Stewart Rover winter road, McQuesten to Gordons Landing, $2,000 ; Gold Hill wagon road from Eldorado up Gold Hill, $6,987.20 ; West Dawson Bluff road from Hubrick Ferry to Glacier trail, $8,804.25 Dawson Bluff road improvements, widening road from eight to twenty feet along Bluff from Dawson to Ogilvie Bridge, $24,366.71; Hootalinqua trail location-from Hootalinqua to Junction Dawson-White Horse road, $251.50. Total, $138,467.11.
Iu addition to this they spent $88,632.16 in maintenance and repairs in different roads which were already in existence. The total amount for construction of roads was $138,467; for maintenance and repairs of Hon. Mr. SIFTON.
roads, $88,632.16 ; $1,807.50 and $1,500, making in all $230,406.77. The amount at then-disposal from revenue which they had, left a shortage of about $126,632. That is the amount we are asking parliament to vote.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: By what authority did they make this expenditure ?


George Taylor: To carry the elections.


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: There was no authority given by the department to the Yukon council to exceed their appropriation, but they went on and they spent the money. We' have no doubt that value was received for the money and that the work was useful tyork, and, therefore, we think we ought to acknowledge it and pay the expenditure.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Did this government make no remonstrance to the Yukon council. It is a most extraordinary way of doing business and altogether outside of any constitutional rule*, of any nation in the world.


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: I have made it clear to the Yukon council that the appropriation in future is not to be exceeded. I quite admit that the action of the council in exceeding the amount at their disposal, was quite indefensible, but I do not think my hon. friend can suggest any other course than to pay what in reality is an expenditure which has furnished useful results, and at the same time to endeavour to see that they don't exceed the appropriation in future.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: This expenditure is not like plugging in the hole. It is not something that was forced on the minister against his will. The expenditure must have been going on the whole season and the minister must have known what this council was doing. That was the time to remonstrate.


George Taylor: My hon. friend from East Grey is quite in error, because the larger part of this money was for plugging a hole during the election in the Yukon Territory. The roads were all built then. We want details of this expenditure.


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: I have given that.
Mr. TAYLOR, You gave a list of roads, but we want to know when the money was spent by the Yukon council and to whom it was paid.


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: The expenditure was incurred during last season. The deputy minister was there in the middle of the summer and he informs me that the information at his disposal did not lead him to suppose that the appropriation would be exceeded, and we had no intimation of it until the work was done and the liability incurred.


George Taylor: That proves wliat I say that when the deputy minister was there in the summer the appropriation was not exceeded, but afterwards the election came on and the money was spent. We want to know whether these roads were built by contract and who the contractors were. Surely the council sent down some details.


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: I have no doubt we have that, and I will lay it on the Table.
Mi-. LENNOX. What was the amount of the appropriation for this work.


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: The Yukon council has various sources of revenue, one being the grant that this parliament votes, and their total revenue last year was, according to our last figures, $385,386.84. The expenditure was $562,029.34, leaving a balance of $176,642.50, of which $50,000 was for the expenditure in connection with the shaft on Eldorado Creek and the remainder for the roads and bridges to which I have referred.


Haughton Lennox: I do not see exactly how the figures work out, though it may be as the minister states. On the figures he gave a few minutes ago, there was in round numbers a total expenditure of 8230,000 on roads. There is a shortage on roads of $126,000. The difference is $104,000. We have this fact, that where the Yukon council would have been justified in expending about $104,000 they actually expended $230,000, or more than double. I do not know whether that fact had any reference to the elections or not; but whether it had or not, it requires very serious consideration and the very fullest information, I think, before this committee is justified in coming to the conclusion which the minister suggests, namely, that there is no alternative but to pay this money now. I do not know where this matter is going to end. I do not know that the hon. minister is exactly correct in saying that this kind of thing never occurred before. Has there never been another occasion when this has been done, though not to so large an extent ? It is impossible to see how this could occur without the knowledge of the department. If it is an honest expenditure, any person familiar with public works and keeping track of the matter in the way in which the department is bound to do, would surely know that the council were more than doubling the amount they were justified in expending. I do not suppose that these public works are gone into without some calculation, some estimate, some data on which to proceed, and the department, if they exercise reasonable supervision, must be able to detect it if the council is going altogether beyond the proper mark. The minister tells us that he has read to-night the items of expenditure. I submit that he has not read the items in the way in which we should have
them. We must separate the items. We have large expenditures for various roads. We have the total expenditure only fbr each road or each separate undertaking; but we have no details whatever of the items which go to make up these separate expenditures. What this committee, I submit, is entitled to is the details of the expenditure in reference to every one of these roads, taking every separate work by itself. I do not say that there is one dollar of dishonest expenditure; but I do say that this committee is not justified at this stage in passing this item, and the minister will recognize our right to have full particulars before the matter goes any further.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The minister's own deputy, wJio was there early in the season, must have been informed what work it was contemplated to do. The minister must also have had some estimate from the Yukon council before last year's estimates were voted. The work was laid out a year before. There is a telegraph line there, which, so far as we know, has been in operation all summer, and the department were in communication with the Yukon council all the time; and yet they allowed that expenditure to go on in an Irregular and unconstitutional way. It seems to me entirely unaccountable, and I do not see on what principle the minister expects this House to vote the money. Then, again, the work was done, and it must have been paid for from some source. From what source were the payments made ? Where did the Yukon council get the funds to pay for the construction of these roads, without the authority of the minister, parliament, or any one else, so far as we know ?


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: My hon. friend understands that the Yukon council have various sources of revenue. Their total revenue last year amounted to $385,380.94. Their revenue keeps coming in, and I suppose they are suffering from a shortage because they have obligations which they have not been able to meet; but as the revenue comes in, I suppose they have been able to pay the accounts as they have come in. They have simply rendered us a statement showing what their expenditure was, and showing that they had that shortage at the end of the year. There was no authority given to them from here to exceed the revenue, and I had no advice that that was done until I received a statement showing that they had over-expended their revenue, and showing what the expenditure had been for. I have no doubt that we have the exact details of every item of expenditure, as they had to go before the Auditor General to be audited in the regular way.


Robert Laird Borden: The difficulty seems to be that if the revenue can be exceeded to the amount of $126,000, there is no reason why it could not be exceeded to the amount of one or two mill-

ions. The methods of the government of the Yukon must be extremely defective if difficulties of this kind are likely to arise. How do we know that the government of the Yukon will not during the present year exceed their revenue by $500,000 or $1,000,000 ? Is there no check on these gentlemen 1 Do they vote these amounts in the Yukon council, and if so, are they not under control in some way ? Who was the party on the spot responsible for this over expenditure ?


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: The officer of the department there, is also controller of local expenditure, Mr. Lithgow. It is his duty to advise. The items are regularly voted by the council on the same principle as we vote items here. *


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Did the officer not advise the government that an over-expenditure was taking place ?


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: No.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Does the bon. gentleman consider that the officer was doing his duty towards the government and the country ?


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: He is a very good officer, generally speaking, but was at fault in not advising us.


Robert Laird Borden: Mr. Lithgow is a very capable and efficient officer, and if it was his duty to advise as well as superintend, I cannot understand his not having done so. The amount seems very excessive, if you compare it with the expenditure in the North-west Territories on roads. $230,000 is a large amount for a very small population and area comparatively speaking. When the money from the revenue of the Yukon is received, is it subject absolutely to the control of the officers there without any control by the department ?


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: The local council have a regular organization and our comptroller is also comptroller of the local expenditure. The council carries on its bookkeeping much the same as we do ours. I suppose that the way this overexpenditure was incurred, was due to the fact that the men in charge incurred larger expenditure than they were authorized to do. Possibly the comptroller did not know until the bills came in. I can say to my hon. friend that difficulties of this kind will sometimes occur in connection with government districts a long way off.


Robert Laird Borden: Would it not be better to alter the system ? The Customs department collects an enormous amount of money, but it is not paid in to the credit of that department. That department cannot spend it. It is paid into the consolidated revenue fund. Would it not be better to have the revenue paid in to the consolidated revenue fund and have the expenditure of Mr. BORDEN (Halifax.)
the Yukon limited to a certain amount, voted and put to their credit.


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: I do not think that the method of paying local revenue into the consolidated revenue fund would answer. We have a council there now, one-half of the members of which are direct representatives of the people. A. considerable portion of the revenue is derived from local sources. Out of a total revenue of $385,000, about one-half is from local sources. I am quite prepared to admit that an improvement should be made, so that there would be no possibility in the future of the appropriation being exceeded. Things ought to be so arranged that we will be promptly advised of any excess over the appropriation, but that will have to be done by checking not only the actual expenditure of money but the incurring of liabilities, which in this case was what actually occurred. The officers charged with the expenditure of the money did more work than they were authorized to do by the council. If there had been an appropriation in excess of the amount at the disposal of the government, they would have reported it ? No report came and we were not advised until after the work was done that there was much shortage.


Robert Laird Borden: I am inclined to think it occurred in that way. I know that Mr. Lithgow, and am very much inclined to think that he in no way neglected his duty. But: some one has been derelict. If it is some one in charge of certain expenditure, the hon. gentleman should let us know and what reprimand, if any, was administered to him or what means he proposes taking to prevent this occurring again. The hon. gentleman likens this council to the case of a provincial government ; but if a provincial government made an over-expenditure and came here to be recouped, they would be told to meet it out of next year's Income. We are asked to supplement this out of the consolidated revenue of Canada, and we must have more effective control. In what department did the over-expenditure occur and who is the officer responsible ?


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: It occurred in connection with the expenditure on public works and the commissioner of the district is the officer responsible.


Haughton Lennox: Who are the parties who determine what public works in that territory are to be executed and what roads are to be opened up ?


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: The commissioner and the council.


Haughton Lennox: When is that done ?


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: It would be in the beginning of the year I suppose.

Mr. MeCOKMICK. How many miles of roads were built for that $130,000 ?


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: I have not the exact mileage, but I have a table showing the location.


Haughton Lennox: I infer that last year some time there was - a scheme outlined for certain public works. This year, I presume, at a corresponding period, something of the same kind was done. Now, having found that this difficulty arose, has the hon. minister put himself in a position, knowing what expenditure is contemplated, to make sure that there shall notthe officers thought they would. I do not think the council knew that they had exceeded their appropriation until the bills came in. That is what I am told, and I believe that it is in accordance with the facts.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What sources of revenue have the council, and how much ? Are they paid so much per head of population or do they collect certain revenues ?


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: From liquor licenses they receive $27,334.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Do they keep the whole of that ?


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: I made arrangements that the total amount of the appropriations of this year should be telegraphed to the commissioner, and I gave instructions that he should be advised that that amount should not be exceeded under any circumstances.


Haughton Lennox: It seems to me that, if parliament is liable to pay the money-and probably there is no way out of it-it would be necessary for the authority responsible to this House-I suppose it would be the Minister of the Interior-to have every scheme involving the expenditure of money submitted to him before it is determined upon, otherwise it is not possible to be sure that this may not arise again. Would the minister tell us whether anything of this kind has arisen before ?


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: In the first place, we carried on these works through the Public Works Department. But, so far as roads and trails were concerned, that was found to be very unsatisfactory. Serious complaints were made and it was contended that the local council would be able to construct the works more effectively and economically, and would be better judges of the way the trails should run, than an officer sent by the Public Works Department. It was decided to change and put the matter in the hands of the local council, in conjunction with an officer of the commissioner's staff, who, in this ease, was Major Wood. We made the change, thinking we should improve our position. Last year was the first year we did this and we found that they exceeded their appropriation. The officer of the commissioner, of course, while not a member of the government, is responsible to me as minister at the head of the department. He acted on the advice of the council. I do not think there is the slightest danger of the commissioner allowing the appropriation to be exceeded in the future in the face of express instructions to the contrary.
I do not think the fact of the over expenditure is due to the elections as the hon. gentleman suggested, but, simply to the fact that the works cost more money than was anticipated. The men who were out on the works incurred larger liability than


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: Yes, these are local revenues. From liquor permits they receive $123,983.69 ; barristers' registrations, $925 ; incorporation fees, $700 ; fines, $1,061.50 ; minor revenues, $2,930.33; marriage licenses, $356.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Do they get any subsidy from the Dominion government in addition?


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: Just what we vote in this way. We voted last year $131,000.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: This is a quasi form of government. Is there no provision in the law by which they are entitled, year by year, to so much per capita or to a certain amount ?


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: No.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Therefore they can properly depend only on the revenues received from the sources mentioned ?


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: Yes.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Then there is no justification in the world for making this over expenditure and expecting the Dominion government to make it good. And it seems to me that it is indulging to an unlimited degree any men or class of men to let them make such an expenditure and allow it to pass. Have the government in any way called Major Wood to account for what has been done ?


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: No, except by voting him an increase of salary.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: That conduct is quite in keeping with the management of public affairs in many other cases under this government. It is disgraceful to the govern-merit and doubly so to the Minister of the Interior. He has his own agents in the Yukon, he has a telegraph line, built at great expense, to enable him to communicate directly with his agents or employees. Yet this expenditure goes on and there is no remonstrance, no punishment for the official who incurred it. As there was no word of remonstrance, so there is no word of real

explanation and, we are simply asked to vote the money. The minister says that the election taking place had nothing to do with this expenditure. From the experience we have had in other parts of the country, it is at least suspicious. The election was taking place, and every employee of the government was allowed to spend money without restraint and without remonstrance. They have a large revenue to fall hack upon, that of the Dominion, and we are asked to vote the money without a word of explanation or excuse. The expenditure has been made by the minister's agents, and the country has to pay the shot.


Haughton Lennox: I understand from the minister that last year we voted $131,000 and we are now called upon to pay $126,642.50. Then we are called upon to pay, something that probably could not be foreseen or controlled, this $50,000 for plugging up the shaft. So, whereas we expected to expend $131,000, we are called upon to expend, not only that, but $176,042.50 in addition. Is that correct ?


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: Yes.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: And this is what the hon. minister calls good business management on the part of a good business government. It will be for the people to judge, and I think they will come to a different conclusion from that of the minister.
Grant to St. Mary's hospital, Dawson, $12,500. The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR. This is one of two grants to hospitals that are mentioned in the estimates.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Are the two in one city?


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: Yes. And both are crowded. The accommodation is not sufficient.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: How does the government come to have two hospitals instead of one large one ?


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: They are not public hospitals.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Who built them, and by whom are they controlled ?


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: One is a Roman Catholic and the other is Presbyterian. They are established by those two churches through humanitarian motives, and are conducted under considerable difficulties. They do public work and fulfil the functions of public hospitals. They formerly received $2.50 a day for each patient, but that was found insufficient, and they now get $4 a day. We are asking for an appropriation in this case of $12,500 to relieve them of immediate necessities and put them in a position to carry on their work.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What oversight, or control, or supervision has the government over Mr. SPROULE.
these hospitals by way of inspection or otherwise so as to know whether they are run economically and efficiently ?


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: We have no oversight or control except that our officers go through the hospitals and see that they are properly carried on.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Have the government no one on the board of management who takes any part in seeing how they are conducted ?


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: For instance, in Manitoba and the Northwest Territories, we grant a certain amount per day for each patient that is treated ; but we do not inspect the hospitals, that is done by local authority. The local authority in Dawson city would no doubt provide for the inspection of the hospitals. But our officers know what is going on, and see that everything is properly conducted. But there is no legal system of inspection by a federal officer.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Wherever we vote money for public institutions we should have some government oversight or inspection to see that the -money is properly expended.
^ The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR. This is not a vote given like money that is paid under an Act of parliament, where of course we should have official inspection. Here we are simply giving this money as a gratuity for work that is useful to the public. I have no doubt that if we desired to have a representative on the committee of management, or if we desired to have the hospitals inspected by our officers, the hospital authorities would cheerfully agree to it. But there is no necessity for it. Of course, on the general principle the hon. gentleman is right.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: You vote money to different denominations for carrying on schools for the benefit of the Indians, and does the minister mean to say that the government has no oversight over those schools, does not inspect them, does not know the tuition which the children are receiving ?


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: We have not made any arrangement as yet for the payment of money for Indian education in the Yukon territory, but when we do, the schools will be inspected by our officers.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: You are carrying on this system for a number of years in connection <vith the education of the Indians in the territories, in British Columbia, and in Manitoba. There you have oversight and inspection; but in this case where you vote money and hand it over to denominational hospitals you have no inspection or oversight.


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: If this were being done on a larger scale,

or where there was a possibility of abuse, the hon. gentleman would be perfectly right in insisting upon official inspection. But here is a small town. I have no doubt the medical officer goes there, and the officer of the mounted police frequently visits the hospitals. The officers of the government are constantly there for the purposes of seeing what is going on. It is a small affair, there is no possibility of any abuse. At the same time, if the hon. gentleman insists upon it, I will agree to have the hospitals inspected by the medical officers of the government.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I think as a matter of principle-and I have expressed the same view before-that wherever we spend public money belonging to the state, we have a right to know from some source that that money is used for the purpose for which it is voted.


Duncan Cameron Fraser: There would be this difficulty, that it would take $12,500 to pay a
doctor to inspect these hospitals, at the price doctors are paid out there.
Some resolutions reported.



ADJOURNMENT-BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

[Stage Direction]
The PRIME MINISTER (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier) moved the adjournment of the House.
Robert Laird Borden: What will be the order of business for to-morrow ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE (Hon. W. S. Fielding).: We will take up several resolutions which stand on the Order Paper, and then go into Supply to consider a number of estimates that are scattered through the departments. Perhaps we will take up the estimates of the Railway Department, though I am not sure of that.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House adjourned at 12.15 a.m., Friday.
[Stage Direction]
Friday, July 24, 1903.