1903-07-13

Mr. R. L. BORDEN (Halifax).: I have a telegram from Dawson making some inquiry as to representations on the areas which are included in the Treadgold concession. The telegram evidently refers to some statement made by the hon. the Minister of the Interior in the House, to which my own attention has not been directed. It states that the hon. gentleman recently informed the House that Mr. Treadgold and his associates were relieved from representation, owing to the faulty construction of the Order in Council of April, 1902, by the Gold Commissioner. The telegram asserts that this is incorrect, and that in September, 1901, the Gold Commissioner returned the representation money to Mr. Treadgold, thus relieving him from representation. I do not know whether the hon. gentleman is prepared to reply now, but if not, would he be good enough to reply to-morrow ?


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR (Hon. Clifford Sifton).: I gave an answer tile other day in accordance with the information in the hands of the department to (be question put by the hon. member for IM-ctou, N.S. .(Mr. Bell). I would not be in a position to say anything about the details without consulting the records. I shall look at (he 'Hansard' report and make a statement.



PUBLIC AND REFORMATORY PRISONS.

[Stage Direction]
The MINISTER OF JUSTICE (Hon. Charles Fitzpatrick) moved for leave to introduce Bill (No. 221) respecting public and reformatory prisons. He said : This Bill is introduced at the instance of the hon. the Attorney General of Ontario. The hon. gentleman sent a letter informing me that the government of Ontario were now prepared to amalgamate the Ontario reformatory with the boys' industrial schools, and this Bill Is intended to facilitate the transfer from Hon. Mr. FIELDING.
one to the other. In addition, this Bill will apply to all certified industrial schools of the province, so that when the reformatory is full, the boys may be sent to an industrial school.
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the first time.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 211) respecting the Nicola, Kamloops and Similkameen Railway Company, was considered in committee and reported without amendment.
On motion for third reading.
Mr.   I@: I do not see that this Bill has any effect whatever except to bring the proposed railway or undertaking of the company under the jurisdiction of this parliament by declaring it to be for the general advantage of Canada. Of course the Railway Committee had the Bill under consideration, and some reason must have been found for making this declaration. But, it does seem to me that perhaps a little more caution might very well be exercised with regard to companies that come before us for this purpose. It was very frankly stated by the Minister of Railways and Canals (Hon. Mr. Blair) that the general policy of this government was to bring every railway in Canada under the jurisdiction of the government by declaring it to be for the general advantage of Canada. That wholesale way of dealing with the matter hardly seems consistent with the spirit of the British North America Act. I remember that the Minister of Justice, four or five sessions ago, declared, on one occasion, that this government would not be a party to making declarations of this kind unless the circumstances justified doing so. But, I think my hon. friend's view, then expressed, has been Widely departed from by the government, as proven by instances arising every day in this House. It has been suggested, if I remember distinctly, by' the Attorney General of Ontario, that, before declarations of this kind are made, some judicial inquiry should be made, and some opportunity given to the provinces to state thei" views and have the question determined as to whether or not the particular railway should properly be subject to the jurisdiction of the provincial parliament. I would be inclined to think that the suggestion offered by that hon. gentleman might offer some food for thought to this government. So far as my experience of legislation during the years I have been in parliament is concerned, it has simply amounted to this-that almost any railway in the country can come here and get a declaration of -this kind.


Mr. CLARKE.: And tramways.


Robert Laird Borden: Yes, and even tramways can come here and get a declaration that their works should by this means be brought under the jurisdiction of this parliament. I am not contending that there may not be some cases-several cases-in which it is proper to do this ; but the fault I am inclined to find is that we do it without very much consideration, we do it without sufficient reason, so far as I can understand. I do not know whether this matter has been under the consideration of my right lion, friend the Prime Minister (Right Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier), but in days gone by lie lias been a very strong upholder of provincial rights ; and this is one of the cases in which provincial rights, so far as railways are concerned can be very much interfered with, and are being interfered with. And, according to the pronouncement made during the present session, made by the Minister of Railways and Canals, 'if X understood him correctly, it was declared that it was the policy of the government to bring every railway within the jurisdiction of this parliament by declaring its undertakng to be for the general advantage of Canada. Unless better reasons than I have yet heard up to the present time can be advanced, I am not prepared to concur m this course. I take this opportunity of presenting very briefly, my views, because this Bill is for the sole purpose of having the undertaking of this company declared to be for the general advantage of Canada. I do not know whether or not it may properly lie classed within that category.
I am bound to assume that the Railway Committee haVe sufficient grounds for reporting the Bill in this form, and I am not making any criticism on the tindertaking of this company, for I do not know enough about it to justify me in doing so. I merely take this opportunity of bringing the matter to the attention of the government, and particularly of my right lion, friend who leads the government and to say that I think the suggestions that have been made might well justify some different course from that which we have been pursuing during several sessions with regard to this matter.
The PRIME MINISTER "(Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier). I am not aware that the Minister of Railways and Canals (Hon. Mr. Blair) has expressed the very broad opinion attributed to him by my hon. friend (Mr. Borden, Halifax) I will have to consult with my hon. friend the Minister of Rail-! ways and Canals as to that. But pending the discussion I may have with him on the point, I may say that the policy of the government is not at all as apprehended by the hon. leader of the opposition. We have been in the past, and we are still, the upholders of provincial rights, and would hesitate 1 ng before we would lay hands on anything which properly belongs to the sphere of
actions of the provinces. Some twenty years ago-I think it was in 1882, or perhaps in 18S3-the policy was laid down by the government of the day that all railways connecting with the trunk lines of Canada, the Grand Trunk and the Canadian Pacific, should be considered as coming under the jurisdiction of this parliament, being considered works lor the general advantage of Canada. Perhaps there was a good deal to be said in favour of the proposition at tliut time, and there may be still something to be said in favour of it. If a railway connects directly with one of the great trunk lines, unless this rule were to apply, the traffic on the main line would be under the control of the Canadian parliament, and then on the branch line, under the control of the provincial legislature. So far as that goes, I am not aware that the principle which was laid down was ever challenged very seriously in this House. The government is not prepared, Mr. Chairman, to assume jurisdiction over provincial charter's ; but in matters of this kind, the government has seen fit not to interfere with the policy that any railway connecting with the Grand Trunk or the Canadian Pacific should be declared to be for the general advantage of Canada. And, so far as I know, the only reason why the Railway Committee agreed to declare the railway referred to in this Bill to be a work for the general advantage of Canada is that it connects with the Canadian Pacific Rail-,way. If any objection is raised when legislation of that kind is asked, we would expect the parties interested, the local authorities, would apply to us and make their objection. But, when no objections are made-and I understood none were made on this occasion-I do not think it would be wise for parliament to interfere and not grant the power. If there were parties in British Columbia who found fault with this legislation and came here and desired to be heard, it would be our duty to listen to their representations. But I understand that no party in the province chiefly interested found fault, and that is why we allowed it to go on. There are some other cases to which our attention has been brought, for instance, the case of the first order of Private Bills, the Bill to incorporate the Toronto and Hamilton Railway Company ; and we have had that matter under consideration and propose to give our opinion before it is proceeded with any further.


Mr. W. F. MACLEAN (East York).: The right hon. Premier (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier) says that the charge has not been proven that he or his party has interfered with provincial rights. The Attorney General of Ontario has stated in Toronto that there has been an invasion of provincial rights by this parliament, and he has deputed a very learned counsel, so I understand, Mr. Irving, once a member of this House to come here and make these repre-

sentations. The ' Globe ' newspaper has also made the charge that provincial rights, and especially municipal rights, have been invaded by this parliament. In a great many instances attempts have been made by pri-vade corporations to evade provincial rule, to evade municipal control, by means of legislative grants in this House. Another flagrant case was that of one of the power companies at Niagara, which came to this parliament to secure powers that it could not obtain in the province of Ontario, and powers which enabled it to invade the rights of the city of Toronto and other cities, so far as they are concerned. The right lion, gentleman now lays down the doctrine that he and his government have no responsibility unless some local parties protest. I disagree with the doctrine altogether. I hold that the government of the day are responsible for everything that takes place in this parliament, and if there is an invasion of provincial rights, they are responsible for it. Especially it -is the duty of the Minister of Justice to advise this parliament, and to advise committees, and they cannot escape the responsibility by saying that somebody did not appear before the committee or before the House to protest. As I said before, there has been this invasion of provincial rights, the Attorney General of Ontario has so declared, and he lias sent a special representative to Ottawa to put in a protest. We have seen the question raised in this House, and we see the municipalities of all Canada are up in arms to-day against the threatened invasion of their rights by the federal power, and for that invasion the government must be held responsible.


Mr. DAVID HENDERSON (Halton).: I have listened with considerable interest to the remarks of the right hon. the Prime Minister with reference to this Bill. I may say that in the Railway Committee the point which was raised by the -leader of the opposition, was discussed at considerable length ; my recollection is that the Minister of Railways then referred to the fact that a protest had come from the province of Ontario as well as from his own province against legislation of this kind. Now to my mind it is a clear invasion of the rights of the province of British Columbia for us to deal with this charter. We know comparatively little of the character of the Bill that we are making a Dominion statute. I have scanned the Bill, it is a statute of British Columbia of 1891. a Bill which contains some thirty-one clauses. The language of that Bill is very different from the language usually employed in railway Bills in this parliament. There also appears to have been an amendment to that charter granted during 1903. The statutes are not available, because I presume they have not yet been issued. Even the files of the Bills in the library do not contain the Bill (No. 38) that Mr. MACLEAN.
amends the British Columbia Charter of 1891. Therefore, we are utterly in the dark as to the character of the Bill, we are utterly in the dark as to the character of the legislation that we are enacting. There is no doubt that this is a live question to-day, how far this parliament is going to interfere with the rights of the provinces. I know in my own province it is a live question, and one that we will hear a great deal more about in the very near future, unless legislation in this House takes a different course from what it has taken in the last few years. I did propose in the Railway Committee an amendment to this Bill, providing that the legislation here sought for should have no force or effect, and should not go into operation until it had been sanctioned and approved by the legislature of British Columbia. In that way I thought we could excuse ourselves for making the enactment which is here proposed, because if the British Columbia legislature, after we had passed the Bill, sanctioned and approved of it, then I fail to see that the same complaint could be made of interference with their rights. I gave notice the following day after the Railway Committee sat that when this Bill came up for the third reading I would move an amendment ; but after hearing what the Prime Minister has said to-day, and seeing that the government is now prepared to accept the whole responsibility of this invasion of provincial rights, I decline to move my amendment.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE (Hon. Charles Fitzpatrick).: I have noted two statements made by the hon. gentleman who has just spoken (Mr. Henderson). He said in the first instance that he knew nothing whatever of the character of this Bill, and then he proceeded to add that it was a clear invasion of provincial rights. I think, in view of those statements my hon. friend may readily be excused for not moving his amendment.


Mr. W. A. GALLIHER (Cariboo).: This Bill is in my name. I must say I admire the persistence of the hon. member for Hal-tou (Mr. Hendejreon), for he raised liis voice in opposition to it when it was first brought before the Railway Committee, and was referred to a sub-committee to report. The sub-committee reported favourably on. the Bill without amendment. When that report was adopted by the committee, my hon. friend again raised his voice against it. So I say I admire his persistence, although it has been of little avail so far. Now the province of British Columbia is not complaining at all with regard to this Bill. In fact I think if my hon. friend who has just spoken will look at section 216, of the Railway Act, he will see that it is an open question, when a line of railway like this connects with a trunk line of railway run-

ning out of tlie province, whether it is not by virtue of that fact under the control of the Dominion government and becomes a work for the general benefit of Canada. However, we did not wish that there should be any doubt upon the question, and hence the Bill was brought forward. As to the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Halton, it would seem to me a strange proceeding for this parliament to pass an Act incorporating a railway company, or declaring an existing railway company incorporated by provincial legislation, an Act for the general advantage of Canada, and after doing so we should say, we will refer it bade to the provincial legislature to see if they are agreeable to our doing it. It seems to me we would be stultifying ourselves. This Bill is similar to a number of others. It charters a railway that will connect with a trunk line, namely the Canadian Pacific Railway. The amendment of 1903, which the hon. gentleman has spoken of, was an amendment with regard to the extension of time, if I recollect correctly.


Eton. Mr. HAGGART.: What is the principal object of the Bill ?


William Alfred Galliher: So far as I understand, the railway, if constructed, is to connect with the Canadian Pacific Railway at Kamloops. That I think is the chief reason. As I said before, it seems to me that it is an open question whether the fact of its coming under section 216 of the Railway Act does not make it a work for the general advantage of Canada.


John Graham Haggart: We have the opinion of the Minister of Railways that there is no doubt as to what the law was.


William Alfred Galliher: I would certainly treat that with all respect.


Mr.  C. B. HE YD@South Brant: There has been a great deal of discussion in the Railway Committee as well ds in the House in respect to this phrase ' for the general advantage of Canada,' and our friends on the other side of the House have constituted themselves the champions of provincial rights. It is a curious thing that the party that has always upheld the doctrine of provincial rights are being placed by our friends on the other side in the position of those who are trying to usurp from the provinces certain powers which they possess. This feeling has been worked up assiduously by our friends on the other side and in their newspapers, and the various municipalities are really beginning to believe that there is a determined attempt being made by the government to take away from the provinces and the municipalities rights which belong to them. I received a communication from the municipality of Brantford asking me to see that their rights were not interfered with by this government as if there were a determined 1 202
attempt on the part of this government to deprive them of their municipal rights. I wrote back to my friends in Brantford saying that there was no desire or disposition to interfere with rights belonging to the municipalities and the provinces, that nothing could be farther from the intention of the government than to take away from the provinces and municipalities any rights that belong to them, that the Liberal party would be the last to think of doing that, that they had been the defenders of provincial rights in past years, and therefore, that they could rest in peace, feeling assured that this parliament would not interfere with municipal or provincial rights. I take this position now, that if there is any doubt at all as to what our legal rights are, if we are going to err let us err in favour of the provinces. Let them manage their affairs as far as possible and let us not interfere with provincial or municipal rights. I know it is not the intention of the government nor of any hon. gentleman on this side of the House to interfere in the slightest degree with the doctrine of provincial rights, apprehension in regard to which is being worked up by our friends on the other side of the House, for political purposes. Such an interference is entirely contrary to the principles of their party and contrary to the principles of the party to which I belong.


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


[Stage Direction]
Mr. SMITH (Wentworth)-by Mr. Borden (Halifax)-asked :-
1.	Did not a second-class long-course grade A certificate qualify for the substantive rank of lieutenant, under G. 0. 86, 1896 ?
2.	Was not the first-class long-course Grade A certificate identical to C. D. G., in King's regulations 1174-ii., for promotion to rank of captain, under G. O. 75, 1899 ? Was there any other way laid down under this order to pass a promotion examination ?
3.	How many officers have received substantive rank of captain since the promulgation of G. O. 75. 1899 ? How many by holding only a first-class long-course grade A ?
4.	Is not (according to your answer, as it appeared in ' Hansard.' June 11, 1903) an officer who was qualified for substantive rank of lieutenant. under G. O. 86, 1896, and who qualified for promotion by obtaining another long-course certificate, under G. O. 75, 1899, exempt from another examination for substantive rank of captain, in G. O. 30, 1903 ? If not., why not. ?
The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE (Hon. Sir Frederick Borden).: 1.	Yes.
2.	(a.) Yes. (b.) Yes.
3.	(a.) Twelve, (b.) Eight.
4.	(a.) No. (b.) Because it has been decided that to ensure efficiency, officers should be called upon to pass an examination for each step of regimental rank.


FAILURES OF CHARTERED BANKS.
[Stage Direction]
Ml REID (Grenville)-by Mt. Earle-asked :-
How many chartered banks in Canada have failed or suspended business, since confederation, and what are the names of them ?
The MINISTER OF FINANCE (Hon. W. S. Fielding).: 1.	The Commercial Bank of New Brunswick, St. John, New Brunswick.
2.	The Bank of Acadia, Liverpool, Nova Scotia.
3.	The Metropolitan Bank, Montreal.
4.	The Mechanics Bank, Montreal.
5.	The Consolidated Bank, Montreal.
6.	The Bank of Liverpool, Liverpool, Nova Scotia.
7.	The Stadacona Bank, Quebec.
8.	The Exchange Bank of Canada, Montreal.
9.	The Maritime Bank of the Dominion of Canada, St. John, New Brunswick.
10.	The Pictou Bank, Pietou, Nova Scotia.
11.	The Bank of London in Canada, London, Ontario.
12.	The Central Bank of Canada, Toronto, Ontario.
13.	The Federal Bank of Canada, Toronto, Ontario.
14.	The Commercial Bank of Manitoba, Winnipeg.
15.	La Banque Ville Marie, Montreal.
16.	La Banque du People, Montreal.
17.	The Bank of Prince Edward Island, Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island.


METEOROLOGICAL SERVICE.
Edward Frederick Clarke: -
Is It the intention of the government to remove the head office of the Meteorological Service of Canada from Toronto to Ottawa ? And if so for what reason ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES (Hon. R. Prefontaine).: Yes. maintaining the magnetic observatory at Agincourt, as at present, and also a local meteorological observatory at the Toronto university. By so doing the service will be under the immediate supervision of the department and will give better satisfaction to the general public.


BOUNTY PAYMENTS ON IRON AND STEEL.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. WILSON-by Mr. Vrooman-asked :
1.	What sum was paid for bounty on iron and steel during the last fiscal year ?
2.	What -are the names of the companies to whom paid, and what was the amount paid to each ?
^ The MINISTER OF FINANCE (Hon. W. S. Fielding). The accounts for the fiscal year referred to have not yet been closed, and therefore we cannot give the final sum, but I can give the information up to date.
Sir F. W. BORDEN.: 1.	The total amount paid for bounties on iron and steel during the last fiscal year, so far, is $1,245,382.25, which includes $147,022.91. deferred from the previous year.
2.	The amount paid to each company has
been :
Pig Iron.
Dominion Iron and Steel Company. .$386,337 93 Hamilton Steel and Iron Company.. ..	90,914 73
Nova Scotia Steel and Coal Company.. 38,973 65
Canada Iron Furnace Company	 87,472 22
John McDougall & Company	 4,598 40
Deseronto Iron Company	 12,409 20

Steel Ingots.
Dominion Iron and Steel Company. .$499,625 51 Hamilton Steed and Iron Company.. ..	36.792 21
Nova Scotia Steel and Coal Company.. 79,851 59

Puddled Iron Bars.
Hamilton Steel and Iron Company.,$ 8,406 76


CENSUS SCHEDULES, HALTON, CARDWELL AND PEEL.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. BLAIN-by Mr. Kemp-asked :-
How many schedules were filled In, either in whole or in part, by the census enumerators for the counties of Halton, Cardwell and Peel 7
The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE (Hon. Sydney Fisher) :: &	Schedules.	Halton.	Card- well.	Peel.1	Population	412	279	3252	Buildings and land s,	churches and schools...	106	77	823	Mortality	31	27	244	Farmland, fruits and plan-	tations	76	03	685	Field products	62	54	636	Live stock and animal	products	69	57	657	Agricultural values and	other real estate values.	93	60	738	Manufactures	63	28	219	Products of the forest....	39	41	2510	Fisheries	1	211	Mining and mineral pro-	ducts	7	5	5A	Persons temporarily ab-	sent	32	27	24B	Individual schedule o f	population	75	65	60C	Butter and cheese fac-	tories. 	4	5	3D	Clay products	3	3	1E	
Total		1,073	791	841


BOUNTY ON BINDER TWINE.
The MINISTER OF FINANCE (Hon. W. S. Fielding) moved :: That the House will, on Tuesday, go into Committee of the Whole to consider the following proposed resolution :

That it is expedient to enact as follows :-
1.	The Governor in Council may authorize the payment of a bounty to any corporation, firm or person manufacturing binder twine in Canada ; such bounty to be equal to the amount paid as export duty in the Philippine Islands, on Manilla fibre produced in such islands, and used in the manufacture of binder twine in Canada. Such bounty shall only be payable in respect of binder twine manufactured on or after the 1st day of September, 1902. Provided, however, that the bounty shall not exceed three-eighths of one cent per pound, on the Manilla fibre so used in the manufacture of binder twine
2.	The Governor in Council may make regulations to carry out the intention of this Act.
He said :	I beg to announce that His
Excellency the Governor General, having been acquainted with the subject matter of this resolution, recommends it to the consideration of the House.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
House in Committee on the following proposed resolutions :
1.	That it is expedient to provide that the security to be held by the Minister of Finance
and Receiver General, for the redemption of Dominion notes, issued and outstanding at any one time, up to and including thirty million dollars. shall be an amount in gold, or in gold and securities of Canada, the principal or interest of such securities being guaranteed by the government of the United Kingdom, equal to not less than twenty-five per cent of the amount of such notes so issued and outstanding, the amount so to be held in gold to be not less than fifteen per cent of such amount so issued and outstanding ; and for the redemption of Dominion notes, issued in excess of thirty million dollars, an amount in gold equal to such excess.
2.	That all expenses incurred or required to be paid in connection with the engraving, printing or preparation of Dominion notes, or the signing, issue or redemption thereof, shall be paid out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund of Canada. And in case the amount held as security for the redemption of Dominion notes should not be sufficient to pay the Dominion notes presented for redemption, or in case the amount so held should be reduced below the amount required to be held, as provided in the aforegoing resolution, the Governor in Council may raise by way of loan, temporary or otherwise, such sum of money as may be necessary to pay such notes, or to provide the amount required to be held as security for the redemption of Dominion notes issued and outstanding.

The Minister of Finance.
The MINISTER OF FINANCE (Hon. W. S. Fielding).: Mr. Chairman. This is a resolution of which some announcement was made and upon which some explanations were given at an earlier stage of the session. I am glad to know that so far as my information goes the change proposed is one which has met with the general approval of financial men. The resolution proposes to increase the amount of Dominion notes which we are at liberty to issue with a twenty-five per cent reserve from 2024 . ,
$20,000,000 to $30,000,000. Our currency is to a large extent a paper currency as a matter of convenience, but it rests upon a safe gold basis. It is understood that we shall have a reasonable proportion of gold at all times in reserve to meet demands that may be made for the redemption of notes. Just what amount of notes we may properly issue in this way would have some reasonable regard to the general growth, development and progress of the country. We have not made any change in the limit since 1880, twenty-three years ago, when the amount was fixed at $20,000,000. By the legislation of that time we were authorized to issue $20,000,000 having as a reserve twenty-five per cent, either in gold or imperial guaranteed debentures, being the equivalent of gold. For all sums over that amount we have been obliged to hold dollar for dollar. As the country grows and we have larger wealth and larger resources, it is only reasonable to assume that that limit may be increased.
I think we would be justified at present in making the limit larger, but in matters of this kind it is always well to proceed slowly and cautiously.


Hon. Mr. TISDALE.: How much does the minister propose to Increase it ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: The present law is that we may issue $20,000,000 on a! reserve of 25 per cent. We propose to increase it to $30,000,000 on a reserve of 25 per cent.


William Findlay Maclean: Does the hon. gentleman propose to issue five dollar notes, and thus increase the denomination of his issue ?


The Minister OF FINANCE.: That very point is under consideration, -but it is not touched by the resolution because it is a matter of regulation.


William Findlay Maclean: Hear, hear.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I am not prepared to say that we may not before the year is out issue a five dollar note if the -demands of the country are as great as we imagine they will be. I am inclined to think that we may have to do what my hon. friend (Mr. Maclean) suggests. The denomination of note will not, of course, affect the amount to be issued. We can issue a four dollar note as we do at present, but it has been represented to us that the five dollar note is more convenient than the four. It is a mere matter of business and if we find that the banks are not able to issue enough ' fives,' we may supply the five dollar note -instead of the four, or continue to issue the four.


David Henderson: The country would not hail with any degree of satisfaction any further issue of four dollar notes, because they are much disliked by the business community and the banks. They look so much like a ' one ' that when money is being kur-

riedly passed, mistakes are made. I believe the Minister of Finance will have the gratitude of the country if he discontinues the issue of four dollar bills.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: That matter was brought to my notice some time ago, and although I thought there was a substantial difference, still, having regard to the representations made to me by business men, I caused a change to be made in the form of the four dollar note which I think makes the distinction clearer. So far as that point is concerned, I think we have met the criticism. But on the point of public convenience I think that the five dollar note is more convenient than the four.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: This is so strong in our mind that we may find it necessary to issue a five dollar note. In the year 1880, when the limit of $20,000,000 was fixed, the total circulation of Dominion notes was only $13,500,000, so that the limit then fixed was about 50 per cent in excess of the total circulation. But things have so changed that to-day we have a circulation of $39,000,000. That in some degree is a measure of the progress of the country since that time. At the time the limit was fixed at $20,000,000, our revenue was $23,300,000, so that the limit was close up to our revenue. To-day when we are proposing to fix the limit at $30,000,000. our revenue, I am glad to say. for the year just closed will be in the neighbourhood of $66,000,000. It will therefore be seen that we are adopting a moderate and conservative policy in the extent of our increase. As an indication of the wealth of the country I may say that in .1880 the deposits in chartered banks was $70,000,000, whereas the deposits in the chartered banks at the close of last year was $370,000,000. The total trade of the country in 18S0

and it is for the convenience of this total trade that this currency system is needed-our total trade in 1880 was $174,000,000, whereas in the year just closed it was about $450,000,000. These few figures show in a striking way the great progress that has been made in the trade, in the commerce, and in the wealth and resources of Canada since 1880, and it would be seen that in making this proposal we are on very safe and sound lines.


Mr. ROBINSON (West Elgin).: Can the minister issue a larger denomination than the five dollar notes ?-why not issue 'tens'?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: If the public demand existed there is no reason why we should not do it, but as a matter of fact the banks issue the ' tens ' and I have so far had no representations that there is any shortage of them. We did have representations made at the height of the currency demand last autumn that there was some anxiety as to the banks supply-


David Henderson: ing the currency; however, if it were found necessary there is no reason why we should not issue ' tens ' or any denomination the public might require.


Jabel Robinson: I think it would be better for the government to issue all the bills. If you did so you would make money out of it because no( doubt a great many bills are lost and destroyed and I think the people should have the benefit of that.


Robert Laird Borden: The position of the matter as I understand is this :	The
present circulation of Dominion notes amounts to $39,000,000. There is a reserve of gold or Dominion securities guaranteed by the government of the United Kingdom of not less than $24,000,000 against that.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: About that.


Robert Laird Borden: The result of the proposed legislation will be to decrease the amount of that security by $7,500,000 ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Yes.


Robert Laird Borden: So that in place of holding $24,000,000 against the $39,000,000 you would hold against it about $10,500,000 ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: That is substantially correct.


Robert Laird Borden: Does the hon. gentleman think it is wise to make so large a reduction in the securities which we hold ? I suppose that he does regard it as prudent or he would not have brought this measure down, but it does strike me that the reduction by nearly one-third in the gold and other securities which we hold on account of this circulation is a pretty important matter. It is true of course that the commerce of the country is developing to a very large extent; it is true of course that our revenue is larger than in 1880; but I suppose we have to consider this question from the standpoint of all possible contingencies. and we must consider what the effect would be in a time of financial stress.
I would like to have the view of the minister with regard to that.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I may say that the step now taken has been taken only after most careful consideration and consultation with the most eminent financiers of the country, because in matters of this sort we should take care that we make no mistake. If this Bill were to be considered entirely by itself, the figures I have given as to the great growth of the country would show that there is ample reason for the expansion. I may mention Incidentally-though I think the Bill would stand on its own merits-that as a matter of fact while we are increasing our circulation in one form, yet we are adding to our reserves of gold a special reserva-

tion for the savings hanks. Of the $7,500,000, which we could issue under this provision, we propose to set apart about $6,000.000 at once as a special reserve for our savings bank deposits; in respect to which we have never had any reserve whatever. Irrespective of that, however, the degree of reserve which we would have even under this Bill will be so much beyond what the legal reserve is; so much beyond what at any time any of my predecessors expected to hold, that there is no danger whatever. I can assure my hon. friend (Mr. Borden, Halifax) that before reaching this conclusion I have had careful consultation not only with my deputy who is an expert in the matter, but also with other financial men. As I have pointed out we are taking advantage of that in a measure which I shall call your attention to in a few moments. We are proposing to set apart $6,000,000 of that sum of money and to ear-mark it as a security for the savings banks-we are not taking it away from the general securities for the obligations of the Canadian people.


David Henderson: Does the minister expect to increase the currency for circulation by the operation of this measure ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: If we were to take full advantage of the Bill and to deal with this Bill alone, the effect of it would be that we would have the right on an issue of $30,000,000 to have a reserve of $7,500,000. Instead of having $20,000,000 with a reserve of $5,000,000, we issue $30,000,000, with a reserve of $7,500,000. The net increase not to be covered by reserve, will be $7,500,000, and we claim that we would be amply justified if we took that and applied it to the general business of the country. We would still have a larger reserve than any Finance Minister hitherto has found it necessary as a matter of law to establish. But while we take this power under this Act, we propose by another measure which is to follow It to set apart $6,000,000 of that amount, and, instead of using it in the general business of the country we will ear-mark it, and hold it as a security for the savings banks. The actual increase of the loaning power of the government under this will be insignificant, perhaps $1,000,000 or $1,500,000.
Mr. HENttERSON. I understood that the object of this measure was to increase the circulation, which I think the requirements of the country would justify. I agree with the hon. member for West Elgin that there is an abundance of $5-bills in the country, in comparison with other bills, but I am sure that it would meet with the approval of the banks as well as the general public if a large number of $10 and $20 bills were put in circulation.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: With regard to the general question of an increase of the circulation, I can assure my hon.
friend that we are anticipating and preparing for It We have power to issue an unlimited circulation with dollar for dollar in gold over the $30,000,000, and we shall be prepared to meet the demands of the circulation in that way.


William Findlay Maclean: The government should have no hesitation in issuing $5 notes. The $5 note issued by the government will obtain recognition not only all over this country, but also in the United States. There is no trouble now in passing the $1 and $2 federal notes in the United States, and a great many of our people going into that country take Dominion notes with them. But the moment they present a Canadian bank note, it is refused.


Mr. CHARLTON.: Is the hon. gentleman sure that is the case ?


William Findlay Maclean: I have often experienced it. I have often seen Canadian bank-notes refused, but if our people go there with $5 federal notes, they will have no trouble in passing them at par. I am surprised to hear the hon. member for North Norfolk saying that Canadian bank-notes are not rejected in the United States.


John Charlton: I merely asked a question.


William Findlay Maclean: A larger circulation is required in this country to-day, and I think the government are taking a very good step in meeting that requirement, and they will make no mistake if they provide for a generous issue of $5 federal notes.


Mr. CLANCY.: I would ask the Finance Minister if it has been the custom of the government to use any part of the reserve in the past ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: No part of the legal reserve has ever been used. It has always been maintained up to the full standard required by the statute.


James Clancy: Then I do not understand what increased security is offered to the people.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I may remind my hon. friend that though there is a legal reserve which must always be maintained, we usually carry somewhat more, which we are able to use in times of stringency.


James Clancy: What excess has there been over the legal reserve ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: At this moment we hold between $3,000,000 and $4,000,000 over and above the legal reserve.


John Charlton: I may venture to remark upon the assertion made by my hon. friend from East York (Mr. Maclean), that Dominion notes of the denomination of $5 pass current in all parts of the United States, that the hon. gentleman is no doubt mistaken. Banks in the United States are

not allowed to handle Canadian currency at all.


William Findlay Maclean: I was not speaking of the banks.


John Charlton: There is a tax of two per cent on any other currency than that of the United States which the banks may handle; and you cannot dispose of such currency in any bank of the United States. It may go into the hands of the merchants on the frontier who have facilities for sending it over to Canada for redemption; but the use of Canadian currency in the United States is rendered impossible by the discrimination against its use by the laws of the land. This is a matter of no importance, however, and had it not been that the hon. gentleman called me down rather summarily for my ignorance on the subject, I would have had nothing to say in regard to it. I hare one suggestion, not of any great importance, which I would like to submit to the Finance Minister, that is, as to the name of these notes. Instead of calling them notes of the Dominion of Canada, which is simply the corporate name of the union of our various provinces, it would be simpler and probably just as well to drop the word ' Dominion,' and designate them as the notes of Canada. I make this suggestion for what it is worth.


William Findlay Maclean: In answer to the hon. member for North Norfolk, I must give my owii experience in the United States, not with banks, but with business people there, which is that they do commonly reject Canadian bank-notes. On the other hand, there is an immense circulation of United States notes in Canada, where there is no tax upon them. I believe there are millions and millions of the currency of the United States government in circulation in Canada, to the great benefit of the United States and to the detriment of our own banks and Canadian currency. It is time that we had some legislation in Canada to prevent the circulation of American notes in this country. We are glad to have the Americans come here and spend their money ; but this American currency is not sent back to the United States, but is continued here year after year. While American silver is largely circulated in Canada, they will not accept Canadian silver with the King's head on it in the United States; it is turned down there every day. They put a blight on it. so to speak. The hon. member for North Norfolk would be talking to the point if he said that what they do in the United States we should do in Canada. He is always? justifying something that is done in the United States, but he does not advise us what we should do in this country in the way of retaliation.


Mr. FRASER.: I do not think there are as many American notes in this country as


John Charlton: the hon. member says. A short time ago, when I had occasion to go to Chicago, I found it necessary to go to three banks in Ottawa before I could get $50 in American notes. A certain amount of American notes are brought to Canada by persons who for the last few years have been living in the United States, and came to spend their holidays here or send money to their friends. In that way a fair amount of Yankee currency comes to Canada, but the amount is not very large. Only a certain number of our banks will take the American currency at its face value. That is largely the way any Yankee bills that are in Canada come in. Our people are not paying their bills in American currency. [DOT]


David Tisdale: I do not think that the hon. Minister of Finance needs any suggestion about the form of Dominion notes ; but for the information of the hon. member for North Norfolk, let me tell him that you cannot make Canada promise to pay money, you can only make the Dominion of Canada, because the Dominion of Canada is the corporate name of Canada. I am more proud of the name of Dominion of Canada than Canada alone, because the Dominion means all of Canada. As a legal and financial proposition, the change could not be made. The Americans are not acquainted with our system of bank currency and will not look at our bank bills unless the promise to pay be made by the Dominion of Canada. It would be a great convenience to have $5 Dominion bills, because $4 bills are inconvenient to make change. I agree with my hon. friend from Guysborougb that we should not put any tax on American money. It is good money, and it is given to us in payment of what we sell. For people with such a large country, the Americans are very narrow in their currency regulations ; and they suffer for it. They tax their banks very high for the circulation which these banks are allowed to make. They compel them to have a dollar government security for every dollar of currency they issue, and that is one of the reasons of their burdensome regulations ; but many of the financiers are considering the question of establishing a banking system there similar to that in force here.


John Charlton: I can quite appreciate the conservative feeling of my hon. friend for South Norfolk (Hon. Mr. Tisdale) with reference to the detention of the full name ' The Dominion of Canada,' but I cannot agree with him as to its being essential or necessary to do so. I shall take the liberty of reading to my bon. friend an extract from the British North America Act, which will be quite as good an authority as his own dictum :
3.	It. shall be lawful for the Queen, bv and with the advice of Her Majesty's most honourable Privy Council, to declare by proclamation that, on and after a day therein appointed, not

being more than six months after the passing of this Act, the provinces of Canada, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick shall form and he ODe Dominion under the name of Canada ; and on and after that day those three provinces shall form and he one Dominion under that, name accordingly
4.	The subsequent provisions of this Act shall, unless it is otherwise expressed or implied, commence and have effect on and after the union, that is to say, on and after the day appointed for the union taking effect in the Queen's proclamation ; and in the same provisions. unless it is otherwise expressed or implied, the name Canada shall be taken to mean Canada as constituted under this Act.
5.	Canada shall be divided into four provinces. named Ontario, Quebec, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick.
So that this land we live in and are so proud of is not ' the Dominion of Canada,' but ' Canada.' We had better stick to the name ' Canada ' and discard Dominion. Canada is a grand name, designating a mighty country and noble people, and will answer our purpose quite well.
With regard to the statement of the member for East York (Mr. Maclean), that I am always engaged in belittling things Canadian and using my efforts in this House for purposes adverse to Canadian interests, I would say to that hon. gentleman that I might quite properly raise a point of order upon the use in this House of old and musty chestnuts. The thing has not the merit of novelty, it would not have had it twenty-five years ago, when it was wont to be used from time to time by hon. gentlemen opposite who were at a disadvantage in argument, but it ought to be out of date at present. However, the hon. gentleman is quite welcome to all the comfort he can get from it.
With regard to allowing American currency to circulate in- this country it would be a misfortune to Canada to adopt the restrictive policy of the United States. It would be greatly to the advantage of business interests in that country if Canadian money were allowed to circulate there. It is no evidence of breadth of mind or good business views that Canadian money is not allowed circulation there. We have shown aptitude for acquiring money and have sense enough to want all we can get ; and if American currency -can be used for the purposes of money, the more we can get of it from travellers and others who buy Canadian products, the better for us. It is a narrow policy which will not take good money wherever it may come from. We should take all we can get and lay our plans, so far as we legitimately and honestly can, to get more.


David Tisdale: My hon. friend is mixing up finance with geography. The name is ' Canada ' geographically, but politically and commercially ' Dominion of Canada ' is the corporate name.


Jabel Robinson: I take exception with the hon. member for North
Norfolk. I think Dominion a splendid name. And I should be very sorry indeed to see the word ' Dominion ' left out of Canada's title. We have the Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, we have other kingdoms in different parts of the world ; hut I do not think any country can show a name as good as ' The Dominion of Canada.' People like money, and no doubt our people are glad to see Americans come in here with money to spend. But, unfortunately for us, when our money goes into the United States it does not pass at its face value. Why should we be so generous as to take their money at par when they Insist upon a discount for ours ? I was travelling a few years ago in the United States, and wanted to pay for my berth in the sleeping car for the night. I had not sufficient currency to pay the conductor for the berth, so handed him a Canadian ten-doilar bill. Every gentleman has not a ten-dollar bill in his pocket when he wants it, unfortunately. This bill happened to be one of the Bank of Montreal issue. The conductor did not know anything about the Bank of Montreal. When I told him that the stock was worth two dollars for one, he looked at me as though I came from the Cannibal islands, and said : ' There is a discount of 25 per cent on this bill.' I said : ' Surely you are not going to demand that discount on the promise to pay of one of the best banks in Canada ? ' But when he persisted, I said : ' Have you a first class car on this train ? ' And when he told me that there was a first class car, I said :
' Give me back my ten-dollar bill.' He did not do it, but he took it away -and brought me back my change, $7.50, in silver, and I had to go all the distance with the annoyance of carrying about tnose big silver dollars. This illustrates the advantage of our own country issuing ten and twenty-dollar bills. For probably that conductor would have heard something about Canada, and, seeing a bill issued by this Dominion, he might be willing to take it at its face value. We ought to have Dominion bills of larger denominations than those now issued. The public would get the benefit of it if we issued our own money ; and I would like to see the government issue all the money, and issue it in the name of ' The Dominion of Canada.'


Mr. WRIGHT.: I wish to say just a word about the circulation of American money. It is a good thing for us to get all the American money we can. With so much of it coming in, how is it that it' does not flood this country ? Let me tell you how the merchants get rid of the American money they take in. The Canadian Pacific Railway and the Grand Trunk Railway run into the United States. So all the merchants have to do when they get a quantity of American money on their hands is to use it to pay freight bills to either of these, roads. These companies take American money at par and send it out to the United States to pay their

own bills. So tbe American money we get in goes out of the country without the least trouble to our merchants.


Mr. MACPHERSON.: 
Hon. Mr. TARTE.: The two languages, Drench and English, are official in this country. All our documents in this House must be printed in both languages. So I think it would 'be fair to have the new issue printed partly in French and partly in English. I think it would not interfere with the happiness of this country if the French language were recognized in this way as it is on other occasions so far as our parliamentary documents are concerned.


Mr. MARCIL (Bonaventure).: I think the idea expressed by the hon. member for St. Mary's, Montreal (Hon. Mr. Tarte), is certainly deserving of consideration. But it is more a sentimental than a practical question. But the suggestion made by the hon. member from North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton) is especially deserving of attention on the part of the Minister of Finance. The words ' Dominion of Canada ' have been translated in French by ' Puissance du Canada.' Great difficulty was found in choosing a French word having just the meaning of the word ' Dominion ' in connection with the name of Canada. It is now admitted that the word ' Puissance ' does not convey just the meaning of the word ' Dominion.' Therefore, I think the word 1 Dominion ' might well be left out. Let the. word ' Canada ' stand alone, and it would be accepted by the French and English alike, and would simplify matters very much.


Joseph Israël Tarte: Has not my hon. friend the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Fielding) a word to say in answer to my question ? I would like to have a * yes ' or ' no.'


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: It is not my habit to give a ' yes ' or * no ' to a new Mr, WRIGHT.
question. I can only say that any suggestions from the hon. gentleman (Hon. Mr. Tarte) on this subject or any other shall receive careful consideration. But if he demands a ' yes ' or ' no,' surely he has forgotten the ministerial reserve which was at one time so important. Unfortunately, we are not so free to -say ' yes ' or ' no ' as the hon. gentleman is.


Joseph Israël Tarte: The answer is not very clear. I perfectly admit that the hon. gentleman (Hon. Mr. Fielding) has not said 1 yes ' and has not said ' no.' Diplomacy is all right, but a clear statement, either now or later, would be welcome indeed. The question is worthy of some consideration, unless I am very much mistaken.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I have assured the hon. gentleman that this and all other suggestions offered I shall feel it my duty to fully consider. But if I do not answer ' yes ' or ' no,' it is for reasons that the hon. gentleman, as an ex-minister, can fully appreciate.


Joseph Israël Tarte: I am pleased now.


Robert Laird Borden: Notwithstanding what my hon. friend the Minister of Finance has observed, it does seem to me that the course he proposes may at -some time in the future weaken our position in regard to the currency. Taking the amount the Minister of Finance has mentioned, $39,000,000, our reserve at the present time amounts to 65 per cent of the total issue of currency. Under the arrangement he proposes, our reserve will amount to 45 per cent of the total issue of the currency. Of course, if the amount of currency should be reduced to $30,000,000, it will stand, so far as proportion is concerned, at what it is now, 25 per cent in each case. But in that case there is $7,500,000 for which we provide no reserve whatever, in addition to the amount now standing without any reserve. I have no doubt that my hon. friend the Minister of Finance and his officials have considered this very carefully, but I think it cannot be disputed that our position is weakened to the extent I have mentioned, and we must surely call a reduction of the gold reserve from 65 per cent to 45 per cent a weakening of our position. We hre forced to take that view of it when we consider the possibilities of the future without looking solely at the business conditions that prevail today.
Resolutions reported, .read the first and second time and agreed to.
The MINISTER OF FINANCE moved for leave to introduce Bill (No. 222) respecting Dominion notes.


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

[Stage Direction]
House in committee on the following resolutions :

That it is expedient to amend chapter 10 of the statutes of 1S99, intituled : ' An Act respecting the city of Ottawa,' as follows :-
1.	The period during which the sum of sixty thousand dollars annually, referred to in section 1 of chapter 10 of the statutes of 1899, may he paid, shall be a period not exceeding twenty years from the first day of July, one thousand eight hundred and ninety-nine, instead of a period not exceeding ten years from said day, as provided in said section,
2.	The commission may borrow from time to time, on debentures of the commission, bearing interest at a rate not exceeding four per cent per annum ; which debentures the commission is hereby authorized to issue ; such sum or sums of money, not exceeding in the whole two hundred and fifty thousand dollars, as may be reauired to enable the commission to purchase land or to carry into effect any scheme of improvements and undertakings requiring a larger outlay than would be available out of the annual income of the commission, or for both purposes. Providing always that no money shall be borrowed by the commission except with the previous consent of ithe Governor in Council.
3.	No debentures shall be issued by the commission for a period extending beyond the first day of July, in the year one thousand nine hundred and nineteen. The debentures issued under the authority of this Act shall be paid and redeemed by the commission in equal annual instalments, beginning at the expiration of one year from the date of the issue thereof. So that the total amount of the debentures so issued shall be fully paid and redeemed on or before the said first day of July, one thousand nine hundred and nineteen.
4.	The principal of the debentures issued under this Act, and the interest thereon, shall be a first charge and lien upon the income of the commission from whatever source derived. And the commission shall each year set apart and appropriate such amount of such income as shall be reauired to pay and discharge the principal and interest of such debentures as shall fall due and become payable during such year. The word ' year ' in this section means the period beginning on the first day of July, in one year, and ending on the 30th day of June in the next year.
The MINISTER OF FINANCE (Hon. W. S. Fielding).: Some years ago the government presented to the House a proposal to the effect that the time had arrived when we should take some .action as a government and parliament in recognition of the position of Ottawa as the capital of the Dominion. While in its municipal affairs it stood to us in no other relation than any other city of equal size and equal population, still, inasmuch as it was the capital of the Dominion, the whole Dominion was interested in seeing it developed with some regard to beaut}'' ; and the idea was advanced that we should contribute a moderate sum from the Dominion revenues with the view of improving the city. It was not contemplated that this grant from the Dominion should in any way reduce the burdens of the city of Ottawa, although those who are residents of Ottawa can bear testimony that it is a pretty liberally taxed city. The people have been enterprising and progressive, they have made a good many improvements themselves, and they
are rather smartly taxed for it. The object cl' our legislation therefore, was not to diminish any of their burdens, but rather to enable them, or enable the community at large, to do some things which perhaps they could not do by themselves. Accordingly a Bill was introduced authorizing a grant of $00,000 for a period of ten years. A portion of that money was not in the position of a new grant, for we were paying the city of Ottawa $15,000 a year as out* contribution for the water service and other similar services; and it was arranged that that sum, instead of being paid to the municipality of Ottawa should thereafter be paid to a commission, and that we should add to that the sum of $45,000, thus making a grant of $00,000 per annum. That grant was passed,
I think, by practically a unanimous vote of this House. Since then a very consider- , able amount of work has been done, and I ' am sure that those who have had an opportunity of inspecting the improvements that have been made will agree with me that much has already been done in the way of improving the city of Ottawa. The grant, however, is for a limited period of ten years.
I have no doubt we will generally agree without a moment's hesitation that at the expiry of the ten years any government which might be in power would probably move for continuing the grant. We have thought therefore that as it is likely the grant will be continued under any circumstances, we might well anticipate its continuance, and by legislation at this session put the Ottawa Improvement Commission in a position to undertake some work on a larger scale than they could hope to undertake if they were limited to the ten year grant. The further proposal therefore 'is to increase the grant from ten years, from 1899. when it was made, to a period of twenty years from the original date, twenty years instead of ten years. The advantage of this to the commissioners will be that, with the certain knowledge that the grant will be so continued, they may capitalize a portion of the grant and raise a reasonable sum of money to enable them to purchase land and to do some things that they could not do out of the ordinary grant.
It may be remembered that the number of the commission was enlarged at the last session of parliament. My desire and the desire of my colleagues was that it should not be a purely local organization composed merely of gentlemen living in the city of Ottawa who took a warm interest in the matter ; we desired that the commission should also include a number of gentlemen representing the outlying community. Therefore we added the names of some gentlemen not living in Ottawa, not in any way specially connected with Ottawa, but gentlemen who -were prepared to take an interest in Ottawa from the broader point of view of its being the national capital. If the House shall grant the commissioners this

extension which we are now proposing, they contemplate issuing bonds to the amount of $250,000, to enable them, as X said a moment ago, to purchase land and do some tilings on a larger scale than they could do if they had only the expectation of a ten years' grant. They contemplate asking the city of Ottawa to turn over to them the beautiful Rockliffe park. I take it for granted the city of Ottawa would be willing to do that, although that is a matter which the city authorities must determine for themselves. But beyond the limits of fiocldiffe park there is a considerable area of land well wooded and beautifully situated, which might well make an addition to the park. The commissioners have taken options on a portion of that property, and I think they are in a position to obtain another portion ; . however, 1 am not quite clear that they have a formal option. A large portion of this land is owned by Mr. Keefer, the eminent engineer, an elderly gentleman now. and I believe that he has kept this land for several years intact with the idea that the commission would desire it. He has given them an option on this land which seems fair and reasonable. However, at our suggestion, the commissioners have appointed valuators to report on the value of the land, and if the scheme is- carried out, only such price as these independent valuators report will be paid.
Another point In which we have advised the commission to take special action is in regard to the employment of a landscape gardener. While we have the highest admiration for the work that is already done and for the engineer who has charge of it, while we believe good work has been done, still we think that if there is to be a scheme of improvement that we can all feel proud of, it would be well that the commissioners should have hereafter the advice and assistance of some man who has had large experience in other communities in laying out grounds of an ornamental character. The commissioners, acting upon our suggestion, have, X understood, employed for consultation, an eminent artist who has had great experience in this direction, in laying out parks and lands elsewhere, and who, I believe, is now acting with the commissioners in maturing a satisfactory scheme. We have every reason to believe that, in the hands of the commissioners, and with the advice of the gentlemen whom they have consulted, if we give them the enlarged grant which it is proposed, they will be able to enlarge their operations, and that within a comparatively short time, within the time of those of us who are still members of this House and even of the older gentlemen who are present to-day, we may reasonably hope to see still further improvements, and to see the city of Ottawa embellished in a manner worthy of the capital of the Dominion of Canada. * I do m t know Hon. Mr. FIELDING.
whether there is any special feature of the work of the commission upon which information may be given. I have been furnished with the statements as to the operations which have been carried on, the amount of money they have expended and so forth and I shall be very glad to give any further information that may be desired by the committee.


Robert Laird Borden: I would like to ask the hon. gentleman how the commission is constituted and by what authority the commissioners are appointed ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: The Mayor of the city of Ottawa has a seat on the board ex-officio by reason of the fact that a portion of the annual grant which is nominally put in the shape of a grant from the Dominion parliament really represents the sum previously agreed upon and paid for water service, and as representing an interest of that character as well as because of the fact that he is Mayor of the city it is proper that he should hold a seat on the board. Otherwise the members are all appointed by the Governor in Council. The chairman of the commission is Mr. Henry N. Bate. The first commissioners were, Mr. Henry N. Bate, who has been chosen chairman, Mr. Joseph Riopelle, of Ottawa, Mr. C. R. Cunningham, of Ottawa, with the Mayor of the city. Since that time we have added Sir Wm. Hrngston, of Montreal, Senator J. P. B. Casgrain, of Montreal, Senator Frost, of Smith's Falls and Mr. Geo. O'Keefe, Police Magistrate, of the city of Ottawa.


Robert Laird Borden: Has the commission any income other than is derived from this grant ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: No, but if they should receive anything by way of bequest or otherwise, we provide that all issues of bonds shall be a first charge upon it. At the present time they have no sources of income except this grant.
Mr. IIEl'D. Are the services of the commissioners gratuitous ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Yes.


Jabel Robinson: Will this commission act independently of the city council 1


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Yes, the mayor of the city is the link between the municipal authorities and the commission, but the board is entirely independent.


Jabel Robinson: Will that commission have power to remove the lumber piles beyond the limits of the corporation ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I am afraid not.


Jabel Robinson: The city runs the risk of being burned down every time a breeze springs up.


William Findlay Maclean: I wish to endorse what the hon. member for West Elgin (Mr. Robinson) says. We are expending a great deal of money in the capital of the country. We are embarking upon a park scheme. We are following on the lines adopted at Washington, but at Washington they went one further and took control of the city. The experiment there has proved most successful. Washington is now held up as the best administered city in the United States. As a matter of fact the city of Ottawa is not doing what it ought to do to entitle it to retain the capital at this place. Its laws in regard to tires and in regard to allowing lumber to be piled within its limits are not such as to discourage the people of Canada in any further enlargement of the buildings here. We do not know the day when this parliament House will be burnt up by reason of these lumber piles. We do not know the day when some one of the departmental buildings will be burned. In a short time we may have to spread these buildings over the city and unless the city is willing to administer the affairs of the municipality as they should be administered, and to provide proper fire protection, the capital, as far as the public of Canada is concerned, is in jeopardy, and I think the time has come when the government, or somebody representing the government, ought to impress upon the city of Ottawa that if we are to make this the capital of the country it is encumbent upon the city that it shall do everything possible to prevent a recurrence of these disastrous fires we have had and especially to prevent fires of the character that threaten to destroy the valuable records and public buildings of the country.


John Charlton: The hon. member for East York (Mr. Maclean) in his remarks upon the city government of Ottawa, makes a statement in reference to one of the largest industries of this city which is repeatedly made, which is seldom controverted and whicli is, in my opinion, to a very large extent unjustifiable. He speaks of the lumber interest of this city as being a menace to the safety of the city because of the fact that it exists here and that the product of that industry is stored here. I do not agree with the hon. gentleman, and this is a subject about which I have some knowledge. I am acquainted with various large lumbering cities of the United States, and in not one of these places is the business barred from the limits of .the city. In not one of these places is the business discriminated against and in not one of these places are the gentlemen engaged in it attacked as public enemies. Take the cities of Saginaw and Bay City, cities with 120,000 inhabitants, where lumber is the chief industry, the lumber is piled throughout the city wherever the mills are situated. It is not found to be a menace, it is not found to be productive of disastrous conflagrations.
Take the cities of Buffalo, Chicago and Ton-awe nda, places where enormous quantities of lumber are transhipped ; in Tonawanda
300.000.	000 feet a year, in Buffalo more than
300.000.	000 feet a year, and in Chicago 1,-
500,000,000 feet a year are handled. All this is stored and handled within the limits of the city, and in none of these cases is this lumber found to be a menace to property. Insurance is effected in these places at the rate of 1 per cent. The great fire which devastated this city originated on the other side of the river. Its origin had nothing to do with the lumber interests. It swept down to the brink of the river and the wind forced it across the river. Had it taken a foot hold in the heart of Ottawa it would have swept the city out of existence without reference to the lumber piles at all. It happened to strike the lumber and of course the lumber was burned. In the last lumber fire the devastation resulted from the failure of the city waterworks system. At a critical moment the principal main gave out, the waterworks pumping house was flooded with water, and the fire department were not able to cope with the conflagration. This city is largely dependent upon this great interest, and this great interest is being unfairly dealt with by a large section of the people of this city.
I did not feel like sitting here and hearing these attacks being made upon it, and these statements in regard to its being a menace to the safety of the city and in regard to the assertion that it is necessary to remove it and that it is necessary to deprive these gentlemen, upon whom the prosperity of the city to a great extent depends, of tiie facilities of doing business at all. Give Ottawa a properly equipped waterworks system and the dangers from lumber conflagrations will be minimized and the city will be protected as well from conflagrations in other respects. In regard to the government of this city by commission, there is a good deal to be said for that. The city of Washington is governed by a commission. The city provides half the revenue and the government provides the other half. There is no trouble about politics in Washington. There is no trouble as to what side the civil service shall vote upon, because none of the civil servants have votes. Washington has no representation in the national legislature. I think the plan has contributed to the welfare of the country. I think it is quite likely that Ottawa, if governed in the same way by a commission, with a com-
I mit.tee of this House acting with a eom-| mittee of the city under an arrangement that the federal government and the city should each contribute a certain proportion of the expense, and with an arrangement that Ottawa shall be barred out from all participation in political elections for the Dominion parliament, it might be well governed. Perhaps the thing is worth considering.


Mr. LOGAN.: X am glad to be able to agree with the hon. member for North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton) as far as the latter part of his remarks are concerned, but In reference to the first part I must, as one member of this House, entirely dissent. This matter of the lumber menace to the city of Ottawa is to my mind a very grave one, and it is a particularly serious one when we consider the proposal to give a very large sum of the people's money towards beautifying this our capital city. The city council carried a by-law unanimously forbidding the piling of lumber in the city of Ottawa. Therefore, why should not this by-law which is enacted be carried out ? If we are to expend large sums of money, as is now proposed, in the city of Ottawa, surely it becomes the duty of the government to insist that the by-law which has been sanctioned by the city council should be carried into effect and that this menace-I think it is well called a menace-to the city of Ottawa should be removed. There is no use in trying to beautify the city in one part and to allow it to be disfigured in other parts. There is no use in our beautifying the city if this danger is allowed to exist at every man's door. I may say to my hou. friend from North Norfolk that the first of the more recent conflagrations would never have reached the proportion it did, had it not been for the lumber piles along the Ottawa river, and as regards the last fire, the city was only saved by reason of the fact that the wind happened to change. Had there been a strong wind blowing from the direction of the lumber piles the city would have been swept out of existence. We are asked now to vote thousands of the money of the people to beautify this city, but at the same time we know that this menace to the city is allowed to remain in spite of the fact that the aldermen of Ottawa have voted that that menace shall be removed. It seems toi me that this is the proper time for the Minister of Finance and for the government to confer with the municipal authorities of Ottawa and to ascertain just where we are in this matter. I. for one, representing a constituency that is hundreds of miles from the city of Ottawa, entirely concur in the proposition that we should beautify this capital city of Canada. I believe it is our duty to make it a city that we ourselves may be proud of, and that also those who come here from all parts of the world on diplomatic and other business, may have reason to admire. I quite agree that we should make Ottawa as far as possible the AVashington of the North. But, Sir, -while I believe this, I also believe that we should not proceed further in this matter until steps are taken to prevent the daily violation of the by-law which has been adopted by the city council of the city of Ottawa. As to placing Ottawa under a commission, that is a large question, and one on which I do not feel competent to [DOT]express an opinion, but with the experience Mr. CHARLTON.
of Washington before us, it seems to me that this matter should secure the careful consideration of the government in order to ascertain whether it would not be in the best interests of Canada that the capital of the country should be controlled by a commission appointed by the government, and therefore practically controlled by the government.
Resolutions reported, read the first and second time, and agreed to.
The MINISTER OF FINANCE moved for leave to introduce Bill (No. 223) further to amend the Act of 1899, respecting the city of Ottawa.


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

[Stage Direction]
Bill (Ao. 198) respecting Penny Banks read the second time, and House went into committee thereon.
The MINISTER OF FINANCE (Hou. AV. S. Fielding).: I would perhaps facilitate the treatment of this Bill if I would remind lion, members who may not have been present of what I said when I gave some general explanations, as to the purpose of the Bill. AA'e were asked a year ago to give a charter to a savings bank under the name of ' The Penny Bank.' It was thought wise that we should not give a special charter to the organization which then sought it, but that -\ve should endeavour to so frame a Bill that it might be made use of by any organization of a like character. The gentlemen who asked for incorporation then, and who were citizens of Toronto connected with benevolent enterprises, very cheerfully agreed to this. During the recess we had this Bill drafted, and it is intended to serve their purpose and also to be available for any other organizations of like character. It is not intended that these should be banks having any capital. They are benevolent organizations and all you require is sufficient security that the funds coming in shall be honestly dealt with. Practically they become collecting agencies for the government savings bank, in as much as all the moneys they receive must be turned over to the Dominion savings banks; they are only permitted to retain a small sum to deal with their daily transactions. There are one or two organizations in the city of Toronto which expect to come under the operation of this Bill at once, and if any similar societies are found elsewhere, they will be able to obtain incorporation by letters patent in the same way as letters patent are issued under the Joint Stock Companies Act.


Robert Laird Borden: Is this founded on legislation which exists in any other country at the.present time ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I am not sure that it is, and yet I think that my

hon. friend will see that it is well guarded and is quite safe.
On section 4,


David Henderson: Will the parties who intend to incorporate one of these banks have to apply for an Act of parliament ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: No. Under section 3 of the Bill, the Governor in Council may issue letters patent.
On section 13,


Mr. FOWLER.: You have this general clause providing that ' the board may, from time to time, make by-laws not contrary to law, relating to the conduct of the affairs of the bank, including among others the following.' Why do you want the words ' among others,' here, when you have at the end of the section a general clause covering the entire business of the bank ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I do not see that these words are of any importance either way. I do not think they make the section either better or worse. It would probably be just as well without them.


George William Fowler: I am suggesting an improvement by the omission of those words.
The MINISTER OF FINANCE moved that the words ' among others ' in the third line of the section be struck out.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to, and section as amended agreed to.
On section 16,
Robert Laird Borden: What is the meaning of the last sentence :
A subscriber, who ceases to be a subscriber, otherwise than by payment of his subscription, ceases to be a member of the bank.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: This clause was suggested by the Toronto gentlemen. The idea is that a subscriber who ceased to be a subscriber would have no responsibility beyond his subscription. The idea is that by ceasing to be a subscriber, he does not cease to be a member of the bank.


George William Fowler: But he only gets his membership by virtue of his subscription.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: He may be a subscriber but not a member. The idea is that if a man who is a subscriber, wishes to cease to be a subscriber, he may still be a member.


George William Fowler: If he ceased to be a subscriber, would he not cease to be a member ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I shall give that clause further consideration. It was prepared by the Toronto solicitor, and does not seem very clear.
Section allowed to stand.
On section 20,


Robert Laird Borden: Is the expression ' voluntary workers ' elsewhere ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: There may be persons connected with the association who are not prepared to subscribe. They may be necessary for working out the organization. These persons may be represented on the board although they have no financial responsibility.
On section 22,-certain payments in good faith valid.


Robert Laird Borden: Are the by-laws required to be submitted to the Governor General in Council or approved by any authority ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Yes, that is provided in section 4.


Robert Laird Borden: The language of this section is pretty comprehensive.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: That is because we are dealing with children and others who are not legally responsible. If section 4 is not broad enough, we may have to redraft it.


George William Fowler: This implies that if thp depositor should die or become insane, and the money were paid by the bank to somebody presenting the bank book without any other authority, the bank would be free from liability. In the case of the ordinary banks an administrator is appointed


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: The section is certainly broad.


George William Fowler: It strikes me it is rather too broad. What the hon. minister says with regard to paying the depositor whether a child or a grown person is quite right- the depositor has a right to be paid. But where the depositor is dead, it is important that there should be some cheek upon the bank.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I grant my hon. friend (Mr. Fowler) that the clause is very broad. But, considering the character of the business, that is, perhaps, inevitable. This is intended to avoid litigation over small sums of money. These gentlemen are acting in good faith, and they have no personal interest. These concerns are not carried on for profit. It would be inconvenient if they were obliged to have litigation over every small sum of money left by a deceased depositor.


George William Fowler: Why not make a limit as is done in the case of a savings bank ? Those institutions can pay up to $200 without administration, if the depositor dies intestate. The limit of deposit in tlmse banks is $300. Why not limit the amount allowed to be paid under this section to $100 ? It would not be right that the expense of administration should be incurred for $100, but over that, there should be the ordinary preen tttlons


C459 COMMONS
The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I think that some qualification of that kind might be inserted. Small sums might be paid as provided in the section, but, in the case of larger sums, the usual proceedings should be followed. I think that suggestion of my hon. friend is a good one, and I will gladly accept the amendment. I move that the section be amended by inserting the words ' not exceeding one hundred dollars ' after the words ' any payment of the whole or part of any deposit or any interest thereon.'


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
►On section 23,
The bank may ot the moneys received on deposit by it hold for the purpose of paying withdrawals such amount as >the directors determine not exceeding the sum of five per cent of the total amount of deposits in the bank, and all moneys received on deposit and on hand at any time in excess of such amount shall be deposited by the hank in a government savings bank or in a post office savings bank to the credit of the bank. Interest on the amounts from time to time at the credit of the bank in the said government savings bank or post office savings bank shall be allowed and credited half yearly to the account of the bank at a rate to be from time to time fixed and determined by the Minister of Finance and Receiver General, such rate not to exceed one-half of one per cent in advance of the rate then payable to depositors ill the said government savings bank or post office savings bank.
The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: This is really intended to pay the working expenses. To that extent the government aid them and encourage thrift.
On section 25. no powers as to notes, loans, real estate, and trading.


Jabel Robinson: How are they going to pay interest if they are not allowed to lend money ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: It will be provided later on that their own money, as distinct from the money of the depositors, they may invest. But the money of depositors they must put in the savings bank.


Jabel Robinson: Will not the chartered banks be allowed to do this business ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: If would not suit them at all.
On section 26,
The bank may acquire the assets and assume the liabilities of any existing savings association for benevolent purposes.


George William Fowler: It strikes me that that should be subject to the control of the Governor in Council, if they are going to assume the liabilities as well as take over the assets


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: These are not incorporated assoc'at'ons, but merely private organizations carrying on business


George William Fowler: in a free and easy way. And, if they arrange among themselves I do not see why we should interfere in the matter.


George William Fowler: You are empowering them to assume the liabilities as well as take over the assets, and that might be an unfairness to the depositors of the penny bank. It is possible that even a benevolent association might he badly in the hole financially, and to take it over would be an injury to the depositors. It would be better to provide for tliat in some way.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I think that, in view of the character of the business, as it is a benevolent and not a money making business, we could trust these people to protect each other. Of course, it is possible that the difficulty suggested by the hon. gentleman (Mr. Fowler) might arise, but I do not think it is sufficiently real to make necessary the provisions suggested.
Section 26, subsection 3,
Until the portion of such assets which consists of securities is converted into cash, such securities shall be deposited with the Minister of Finance -and Receiver General, pending the realization thereof into cash las aforesaid ; provided. however, that' the said minister shall not incur any liability or responsibility in respect thereof, or in connection with any sale thereof.


George William Fowler: It seems to me that my objection is well taken, because subclauses 2 and 3 seem both to intimate that it is possible there might be liabilities that would be in excess of the assets, that the assets might not be equal to tlie cash. I think before this new bank should have power to take over an existing institution the affairs of that institution should be examined by the Finance Department.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I will note my hon. friend's suggestion for consideration later on.
Section 29,
The bank may invest the moneys of the guarantee fund in. or lend such moneys upon the following securities and investments, that is to say :
(c.l Shares in the capital stock of any incorporated trust company doing business in Canada, having, according to its then last preceding annual statement submitted to its shareholders. a reserve fund or rest amounting to at least twenty per cent of its capital, and having -its stock marketable above par.


George William Fowler: I think in view of the lute experience of trust companies, in Canada, it is well to strike that out.


Thes MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I would like my hon. friend to observe that this is not the depositors' money at all, we are not allowing them to handle a cent of the depositors' money in this way. This is merely their own contribution to tlie guarantee fund, and they should have a greater liberty in that respect than if it were trust money.

It is not in any sense trust money, or the depositors' money.


George William Fowler: True, but this guarantee fund may he swept away by bad investment in some trust company. We ought to have a reasonable restriction, though we have to make it much broader than a trust fund.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Well, if there is any particular class of securities which is not sound, I have no desire to put them in. But as it is not the depositors' money but the bank's own money raised for a guarantee fund, we should give them greater freedom in order that they may earn interest thereon, and thus be able to earn working expenses.


George William Fowler: At the same time there seems to be a pretty wide range of securities, some of which seem objectionable in view of past experience.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I should be glad to hear any discussion of that whole section regarding the investing power, and at the end, let the clause remain in committee. I am anxious to have it made reasonable. At the same time I would like the hon. gentleman to bear in mind this important distinction that it is not the depositors' money at all.


Jabel Robinson: To whom are the managers of this bank to give security ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: This guarantee fund becomes the security.
On section 33,


George William Fowler: I think it would be well to have three officers subscribe.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Under the Bank Act we accept the certificate of two officers. It may not be convenient always to have three.
On section 34,


George William Fowler: I see there is no provision made for an audit. I suppose that will be provided for by the by-laws. That is the intention is it ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Yes.


George William Fowler: Would it not be as well to provide in the Bill that an audit shall be made by a chartered accountant ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: That will be left to be provided for by their own bylaws. We have no provision for auditing the affairs of any bank. We must leave that to themselves.


George William Fowler: Would it not be as well to have the provision that a proper audit of the accounts shall be made ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I will take note of that for consideration.


Jabel Robinson: Will these banks be subject to government inspection ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Banks are not subject to inspection.


Jabel Robinson: Will these be subject to inspection by a government official ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: No, they will be in the same position as an ordinary chartered bank. They are bound to make returns. If these returns are honestly made well and good ; if they are dishonestly made the penitentiary looms up before the parties.


Jabel Robinson: It is a great pity that these banks are not subject to government inspection. Quite possibly we would not have had so many failures as we have had if banks had been subject to inspection.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: That is a very debatable question.
On section 38,


George William Fowler: I would make a suggestion in reference to this matter of an audit. I would suggest that section 33 be amended so that there will he at the commencement of each year an audit made by a chartered accountant, and that he shall append to this statement that is to be made to the minister his certificate that this is a correct statement.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: The suggestion that there shall be an examination by a chartered accountant is well worthy of consideration, but it must be distinctly understood that the accountant acts for the bank and not for the government. We do not wish to assume responsibility for inspecting these organizations at all. It would be proper that they should by their own by-laws cause an audit to be made by a chartered accountant. I think the suggestion is well worthy of consideration, and I will note it.


George William Fowler: I do not mean that the department shall assume any responsibility for this audit. This section 38 would operate to subject the accountant to punishment if the certificate were incorrect.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Yes. I beg to move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.


David Henderson: Before the committee rises I would ask the hon. Minister of Finance to revert to section 9. Provision is made that the organization must be completed and that the certificate of the treasury board permitting the bank to carry on business shall be issued within a year from the date of the letters patent incorporating the bank, and also that in the event of the bank not obtaining a certificate

from the treasury hoard within that time the letters patent of the corporation and all rights shall cease. Would it not be wise to make some provision to revive what had been done without going through the whole procedure again. It is customary for a chartered bank in such a case as that to come to the House of Commons and ask for an extension of time. If there were some simple provision to that made here it might be the means of reviving the work that had been commenced, but had not been consummated within a year.


The MINISTER OP FINANCE.: In the case of a chartered bank they would have to come to parliament and get an extension. In this case all they would have to do would be to make application to the Governor in Council for letters patent to be renewed and as the Governor in Council is always on hand there would not be very much delay.


David Henderson: I thought there was no provision made here for a renewal ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: They would not need any renewal ; they would simply start afresh.


David Henderson: But they would have to go to all the expense again.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: There is not much expense. The means of organization are very simple here.
Progress reported.


INSPECTION AND SALE OF SEEDS.
[Stage Direction]
House in committee on Bill (No. 200) respecting the inspection and sale of seeds. -The Minister of Agriculture.
The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE. (Hon. Sydney Fisher).: Mr. Chairman, I think, perhaps, before this Bill is proceeded with section by section, that you will allow me to say a few words in general explanation of it. When the Bill was first introduced I was asked for an explanation, and I gave a very short one which satisfied the House at that time. But, I think I may say. this is a Bill involving a very considerable question, and one which is of very considerable importance to the agricultural community of this country. Therefore, it may not be out of place on my part to say a few words in regard to the events which have led up to the introduction of this Bill. Every one who is interested in agriculture knows well the great quantity of weeds that exist in our cultivated lands. I am well within the mark in saying that one of the greatest difficulties that our farmers have to contend with is in fighting the battle against weeds. A great deal of the best farm land is well cultivated and we have clean fields, and clean crops, but it is a deplorable fact that in certain lands there are a great number of bad weeds. At agricultural meetings throughout the country, Mr. HENDERSON.
this question has constantly come up and the speakers are frequently being asked how the weeds may be dealt with, and as to how new weeds come to be introduced. This has led to a very thorough discussion with reference to the control of the sale of seeds in order to secure that weed seeds should not be distributed with good seeds. I do not say that this is the only way in which weeds are distributed, but at the same time the attention of those interested in agricultural progress having been called to the question, investigation was had to ascertain to what extent weeds were being distributed through the ordinary sale of seeds. I undertook, as Minister of Agriculture, to start an investigation into this question two .years ago. I Secured the services of Mr. Clarke, who is a graduate of Guelph college, and who had given considerable attention to this subject. After thoroughly discussing the question with Prof. Robertson, we established what is commonly known as a seed laboratory for the testing of seeds and the investigation of all matters concerning them. This is a machinery which has been established in other countries, but it had never before been attempted in Canada. We secured samples of the ordinary seeds of commerce and we found a startling condition of affairs. While a great many of the seeds sold by the merchants and even by the smaller store keepers were quite good, there was found to be a very considerable proportion which were largely adulterated with weed seeds and with the seeds of plants which were not those supposed to be purchased. There was-also a large proportion of the seeds which were true to name, but which were not germinable. This latter defect is a comparatively trifling one, although serious enough in many samples which we obtained. But the distribution of the seeds of noxious weeds to farmers who believe they are buying goods seeds is a most serious matter and it conduces to inflict almost incalculable loss on the farmers. When you reflect that a farmer does not get the results of his sowing for nearly a year, and that if' the seed is bad he loses a whole year's work, you will see that it is a very serious blow to agricultural operations. It is still worse when he finds that instead of sowing his land with the seeds of what should turn out to be a profitable crop, he has been sowing the seeds of noxious and pestiferous weeds which may take him years to eradicate. One can well understand the incalculable loss inflicted on the farmers of the country in that way. In other countries efforts have been made to protect the farmers from the results of the trade in bad or impure or imperfect seeds. In England, in Germany, in Switzerland and in other countries, attention has been directed to this matter, and various forms of legislation have been adopted. In some of the states of the Union they have recognized the magnitude of the evii, and they have tried to lessen it by

legislation. In Manitoba, and I think the North-west Territories, various ordinances have been adopted, but in Canada there has been no general attempt up to the present time to deal with this matter at all. I have become fully satisfied that the time has arrived when in the interests of the farmers of the country it is necessary that this parliament should try to protect them in their business in this regard, and to minimize as much as possible the evils which have resulted from the condition of affairs I have described.
At six o'clock, committee took recess.
After Recess.
Committee resumed at eight o'clock.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Mr. Chairman, when you left the Chair, at six o'clock, I was explaining shortly what had led up to the introduction of the Bill now before the committee. I need not again go over that ground, except to state that this Bill is for the purpose of protecting farmers and others who purchase seeds from paying for what they do not intend to buy, and and from having sold to them under the name of good seeds the seeds of noxious and pernicious weeds. For many years back, at public meetings in which agricultural subjects have been discussed amongst the farmers of the land, constant inquiries with regard to the distribution of weeds in the country, the foulness of our laud, and the purity of the seeds sold by the trade, have been made of the speakers and the officials of the various agricultural departments who have been present at those meetings. These questions aroused such interest throughout the country that they seemed worthy of a thorough investigation, and some two years ago the officers of my department took up the matter with me. We concluded to hold an investigation, for the purpose of which I was able to secure the services of Mr. Clarke, who is now in charge of the seed laboratory here, and who had a good deal of training in this direction at Guelph, and in other ways. The result was the discovery of a condition of affairs which at first sight was rather startling. It was found, not only, that a great many of the seeds sold to the farmers were infertile or not germinable, but also that great quantities of the seeds of noxious weeds were included in the sample? for sale. We made arrangements to test thoroughly the samples of seeds so as to see just what their quality was, as gathered from all over the country. I may say that the samples obtained were generally from small dealers who sold direct to the farmers, and I daresay would be hardly entirely representative of the trade in seeds on the part of the best seed-producers in Canada. No doubt a great many of the best known seed firms in Canada sell direct to the farmers without the in-203
tervention of local dealers or salesmen, and I dare say that if a large number of samples of their seeds were to be tested, their average quality would be found to be much higher than the average quality of the samples we collected. Still, the samples we collected were those of the seeds which are sold to the farmers of the country in the ordinary course of trade, and therefore they do fairly represent the class of goods which the average farmer is obtaining and paying for. The samples obtained, as was stated in the bulletin issued last year on this subject, showed two or three things very markedly : first, that in many instances a large proportion of the seeds sold were not germinable-would not grow. That is a comparatively minor fault, although the investigation showed that the farmers were buying and paying for a great deal that was of no value.	Next, it showed
that in the samples of seeds a large proportion were not what they were represented to be, but included not only infertile seeds, but also dirt and foulness of various kinds. That, too, was a bad enough thing ; but it was not so great a hurt to the farmer as the greater wrong of selling the seeds of noxious weeds. In this the farmer suffers a loss which is most incalculable. He gets not only what is of no value to him, but what is going to cause immense loss, very likely for years, and not only to himself, but to all his neighbours in the locality in which he lives, for it may be but a short time before that noxious weed possesses a great portion of the land in which it is sown. There is no doubt that by means of the sale of seeds in Canada a considerable number of noxious weeds have been spread in parts of the country where previously they wrcre not known at all. Once estabished, they have spread over the land and have possessed it to a large extent. The condition of affairs seems to me to call for a remedy, and I believe the only effective remedy is legislation by the parliament of Canada dealing with this trade. Far be it from me to wish to interfere with the trade more than is absolutely necessary in the interest of those whom we desire to protect. I would be sorry to interfere in any way with legitimate trade, and I do not believe that this Bill, as proposed, with such modifications in it as the current of discussion may bring about, will interfere with legitimate trade. But I am desirous that this Bill should be so framed, as to interfere with illegitimate trade, so as to protect the purchasers of seeds from being imposed upon, either intentionally or unintentionally, by people who are handling seeds for sale in the country. Some may think-my hon. friend from Halton (Mr. Henderson) may take this ground-that this is too paternal legislation. The hon. gentleman has accused me of introducing grandfatherly legislation. Well, I can endure the taunt from my hon.



friend if I place in the hands of the farmer machinery which is going to have the effect of protecting his fields from the introduction of noxious weeds, enabling him more clearly and easily to ascertain the exact value of what he is purchasing, and providing him with a remedy against the person who is selling him so evil a thing as impure, adulterated or ungerminable seeds for sowing on his land. I do not wish at all to claim every detail of this Bill as being perfect. I may say that the Bill has been drawn after careful study and investigation, not of one mouth or a few months, but of a couple of years, and it has been drawn after more or less consultation with seedsmen as well as farmers. I fully appreciate that there are some provisions in the Bill which the trade object to-some provisions which perhaps can be so modified as not to interfere with the trade as much as they appear on the service to do. I should be glad of suggestions which would make the Bill more perfect in that respect, so long as its essential purpose is not defeated or interfered with. I may say that a few weeks ago I received a deputation of the seedsmen of Canada, who on the introduction of this Bill learned something of its provisions, and came here to discuss with me its details. In that discussion they made propositions and pointed out provisions which they thought unduly interfered with their trade. I would be only too glad to have a thorough discussion of these points in committee, with the view of making such modifications in the Bill as to meet the views of the trade without affecting its primary object. I think that can best be done by threshing out the details of the Bill in the Committee of the Whole. I do not for a moment wish the committee to suppose that in every detail this Bill must pass or even should pass just as it is printed. After discussion, I shall be prepared to accept some amendments, which the House may deem desirable, or may possibly propose some, and I should like to have a most complete discussion. I am satisfied that the agricultural interests of Canada require a Bill of this kind. During last winter and fall, we had pretty thorough discussions of this subject at the meetings of the farmers' institutes all over the country, and my views were pretty fairly endorsed. In some cases formal resolutions were adopted and forwarded me, and in other cases the institute workers and speakers reported that the meetings they addressed were strongly in favour of legislation in this direction. No definite instructions were sent me because the meetings seemed to think that the officers in my department, with the information at their hands, would be able to frame a satisfactory measure. I might say that legislation in the United States and England and on the continent of Europe has been studied in order that we


Hon. Mr. FISHER.: might obtain from it some guidance in the framing of this Bill. We have also studied the results of seed testings in the different countries in order to see what might be necessary for the protection of the farmers in the seed trade. I am sorry that to-night my hon. friend from Hamilton (Mr. Bruce) is not here. 1 hoped he would have been here as I told him last week I would have to take this Bill up on the first occasion when it was reached, but as he is head of one of the largest seed firms in this country and consequently deeply interested in this measure, I shall not ask to have the Bill moved out of committee until my hon. friend is present to give ns the benefit of his advice.
On section 2,
This Act shall come Into operation on the first day of September, 1903.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: It has been represented to me that the seedsmen have, to a large extent, laid in their supplies for the coming season, and it would be impossible for them to carry on their trade, under the provisions of tills Act. without having longer warning. I shall let this clause stand a little while with the intention of putting in a later date than the 1st of September. It cannot come into operation the 1st of July this year, and the first of September next will be perhaps a little too soon for the trade to adapt itself to new conditions. The probability is I will make the date the 1st of July next year, but shall let the clause stand until I have some expression of opinion on the subject from members of the committee.


Mr. ROSS (Ontario).: I would suggest that this Bill should not come into force until next year. It is rather a new thing to have the seed trade governed in the way the hon. minister wishes. I think it a very proper measure. If the Bill can be worked out, I think it will be in the interests of the seed trade and the seed-growers. The first of September, however, will be too soon to have it come into force. The seed will be harvested, threshed, and probably in the market for sale about the 1st of August. Under the circumstances, it would be almost impossible for the trade to offer seed such as this Bill calls for by the 1st of September, and the hon. minister would do better not to bring the Bill into operation before next year. In the meantime the discussion could go on and serve as notice to the trade that it would become operative next year.
On section 3, seeds to be free from seeds of certain weeds.


William Ross: Are there many of those weeds found in the seeds of Canada ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I have here a statement which would show that there are not. This list of seeds is

made up as being weeds which, in the view of experts, are the most dangerous and the most difficult to eradicate from the soil if once brought into it. In our investigation, under Mr. Clarke's supervision we had about five hundred samples of seed collected, and I have here a statement showing the percentage of seeds of weeds mentioned in section 3, in the different samples :


IN RED CLOVER, 1902.
[Stage Direction]
Per Cent.
Wild mustard	 -g
Ox-eyed daisy	 -6
Penny cress	 -6
Ragweed	 2'4
1903, RED CLOVER.
Mustard	 qj
Hare's ear mustard	 -3'
1902,	ALSIKE CLOVER.
Wild mustard	 2-2
Ox-eye daisy	 5:5
1903,	ALSIKE CLOVER.
Ox-eye daisy	 6 5
1902,	TIMOTHY.
Ox-eye daisy	 5-3
Field sow thistle	 3 3
Ergot	I] 4-6
1903,	TIMOTHY.
Wild mustard	 2'0
Ox-eye daisy	 8X
Ergot	| ] -4
I hope I have made it clear that these figures show, not the proportion of these weed seeds in the samples, but the number of samples in which these weed seeds were found. These were all the samples which showed any of these seeds in the two years' investigations, embracing over five hundred samples. So I think there is no doubt that it would be quite easy for the seed dealers of this country to live up to the provisions of this clause, and, in selling goods, not to sell seeds containing these weeds. Under a regulation which we propose to issue under section 18 of the Act, we propose to make a provision allowing a very small number of any one of these seeds

that is, it will not tell against the sample if a certain small number of these seeds are found.
John Graham Haggart: There is a weed Which I see prevailing pretty extensively in the province of Quebec, and which is coming into eastern Ontario. It is a tall weed with a handsome purple flower. What is it ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: At What time is it in flower ?


John Graham Haggart: It is in flower now.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Is it not a blue flower blooming close to the stalk of a large branching weed ?


John Graham Haggart: Yes.
, The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE. That is what we call chicory. It is pretty prevalent in the province of Quebec.


John Charlton: Is it difficult to eradicate ?
The Minister of agriculture, i
think not if it is taken properly. It is not a weed the seeds of which we ever find in samples of seeds as sold.


Mr. McGOWAN.: There is a very bad weed we call switch grass. The hon. minister ought to stop the sale of that also.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: My hon. friend (Mr. McGowan) will see that the seed of switch grass is not one of those seeds which it is at all difficult to detect. It can easily be removed from clover or alsike seed by fanning. So it is never mixed in with these seeds as sold. This is directed particularly against those seeds which the^ ordinary farmer buying seeds cannot easily distinguish. But the seed which my hon. friend speaks of, any farmer would observe if it were present among timothy or clover seed that he intended to buy.


John McGowan: But the hon. gentleman has included mustard, which is quite a large seed and easily detected, and wild oats also. I suppose that this Bill is intended to regulate the sale of turnip seed and rape seed, not grass seed only ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Yes.


John McGowan: I think it would be better to include switch grass, which is one of the worst weeds we have.


David Henderson: In discussing this clause of the Bill, I think we must read it along with section 6, in order to properly understand what the minister proposes to do. Section 3 provides :
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, forage plants or vegetables, unless they are free from seeds of the following weeds:
And section 6 provides :
The provisions contained in this Act shall not apply to
(a.) Any person growing or selling seeds for the purpose of food, or,
(b.) Any person selling seeds direct to merchants to be cleaned a.nd graded before being offered for sale for the purpose of seeding.
In my previous criticism of the hon. minister's course one might have thought that I considered the minister too much inclined to paternalism in dealing with the farmers, having their products inspected at every turn. I may say that in this case he is not quite paternal enough. To my mind he is going about this whole matter in a wrong way, and I trust he will excuse me for saying so. Had he commenced at the root of the matter, instead of taking the seed after it is threshed and put upon the market, I think he would have accomplished a great deal more. We know very well that throughout the province of Ontario-and I

assume it is very much the same in every province-all the farms are not fouled with noxious weeds. You will find farmers who are careful, who have been careful for a long series of years, and upon whose farms practically none of these weeds are to be found. But other farms you will find literally covered-such farms as we often see travelling through the country on the railroad. One weed, that with the yellow flower, wild mustard, is observable in many parts of the country. To my mind the minister should rather have taken the other view, and made provision in his Bill that only from clean farms should seeds be sold for seeding purposes-I mean clover or grass seed-and put a penalty upon any farmer who would sell seeils for sowing that were produced on a farm that was known to be fouled with noxious weeds.
I can quite understand that the hon. minister would accomplish something if he would proceed in that way. A man who has a farm literally covered with wild mustard should not be permitted to sell seed to his neighbour, or sell it to a seed merchant to be sold again, because it would be sure to foul other farms as it had fouled his own. Surely if the question of seed can be dealt with at all, we could control it by preventing the sale from the farms where it is known that these noxious weeds are growing, and only make it legal for a man to sell seed for sowing purposes off a farm that he knows to be clean and free from weeds. 1 speak, of course, with reference to Canadian seeds, to seeds produced on Canadian farms. We could not in that way control imported seeds, and I regret very much that we are obliged to import so large a quantity. 1 fail to see why we should not produce, for example, all" the clover and timothy in this country that we require. There is a considerable quantity produced in certain sections of the country, and perhaps if there was more encouragement given to those who produce a pure seed, there would be more seed grown in the country. No doubt we import a considerable amount of seed, and possibly some portion of that is exported again. I trust that we are not sowing so much seed imported from the United States as at first we might think. At any rate so far as Canadian seeds are concerned, I would like the minister to look at the matter in this light that instead of imposing a fine upon the man who is selling the seeds and who of necessity has to take his chances in buying them, he would take some steps to secure the seed merchant from the necessity of cleaning these seeds by preventing the man who has a farm fouled with noxious seeds from taking his seed to market and selling it to the seed merchant. That is my general idea of the whole question, and I think more can be accomplished in that way than by the enactment he is providing for.


David Henderson: 


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: My hon. friend from Halton (Mr. Henderson), I am glad to see, thinks that some paternalism at all events is useful, and lie is willing to endorse a certain dose of it.
I am in hopes that before we get through with this discussion, he will agree with me that the provisions of this Bill are about the right kind of paternalism that we require. But my hon. friend has proposed a much more drastic measure than I am proposing, and one which I have not felt that I could propose to the House, either in the hope of carrying it or of making it effective if carried. After all, I am not quite sure that even if it were carried, it would be entirely fair. My hon. friend has instanced wild mustard in the grain crops of the country. It is far too prevalent, I know ; but my hon. friend may not know, though I think he does, that mustard seed can be very speedily separated from grain. A man might have his farm foul with mustard, and still be able to sell a perfectly clean sample of oats, or barley or wheat, cleaning it by a very simple manipulation before lie puts it on the market. As a matter of fact there are some seeds very easy to separate, and others very difficult to get out of samples to be sold. The seed merchants, people who handle seeds, have facilities and have apparatus for cleaning grain, and it is part of their business to do that work. The ordinary farmer who raises grain, who raises clover or timothy, has not generally got those facilities, it is not part of his business, and it would be a great hardship to require him to do it. The seed merchant need not buy from the farmer whose land he knows to be fouled with bad seed, and if he did not, those farmers would very soon cease to attempt placing their grain on the market at all, but would sell their product for feed or feed it at home. I think the provisions of the Bill will accomplish more than the proposition of my hon. friend would do, even if it could be passed in this House.


Mr. RICHARDSON.: The provisions of this Bill are of considerable importance. We cannot go through large portions of the province of Ontario without observing that there is a large mixture of foul seed in the grain of the country. I think I never saw so much mustard in the fields of Canada as I have seen this year. Still, it appears to me that there are some things in this Bill that will bear with undue harshness upon the dealers in seeds. I have seen samples of various kinds of weeds, some of which are mentioned in this Bill, and from what I can learn, no means have yet been discovered of separating completely those foul seeds from out of the grain ; unless they are different in size and conformation they will go through the screen, and that makes the grain worthless. This Bill makes it illegal for a man to have bad seeds for sale,

and in that respect it is rather hard on dealers in seeds who may not be experts themselves, and may not be able to detect the various foul seeds that are found, especially in clover. A man may buy seed believing it to be all right and have it in his possession for sale. I doubt if any dealers in seeds in Ontario are willing to buy any seed for sale, or for the purpose of sowing, knowing it to be mixed with the seed of weeds. But they may become possessors of such mixed seed innocently, and by this measure they are liable to a heavy fine. If in some way a measure could be made to reach those who knowingly have weeds growing upon their farm, and who sell this foul seed with their grain, it would be a fairer measure than it stands at present.


James Clancy: I fully sympathize with the object of this Bill. I think anything workable that can be passed in the direction indicated by the Bill, is desirable legislation. But I fear that in order to give effect to this Bill in certain quarters, the Minister of Agriculture has gone so far as to make it unduly harsh in another quarter. It is a very difficult thing, I admit, to draw the line between who is and who is not a seller of seeds. The hon. gentleman will see that he necessarily includes every farmer in the country in some of the provisions of this rather drastic legislation. Now the hon. gentleman as a farmer himself knows that there is a good deal of seed of the various classes mentioned here that never goes through the hands of either the wholesale or the retail dealer. He knows very well, and he has said as much this evening, that there are certain classes o'f foul seed which get among the farmers' grain without any fault of theirs. If they do discover them they have no means of eradicating them and therefore it would be a very great hardship if you were to enforce sections 3 and 4. If I may be permitted to refer in advance to section 4, I would call attention to the fact that it provides that:
No person shall sell, or offer, expose or have In his possession for sale any seeds of timothy, red clover or afsike, or any mixture of the said seeds, unless each and every receptacle, package, sack or bag containing such seeds is marked in a plain and indelible manner.
(a.) With the initials of the Christian names, and the full surname and address of the wholesale or retail seller.
Every farmer in the country who exchanges with or sells to his neighbour which is the most common practice will be liable to the penalty of this law. It is a common practice for farmers to go around amongst each other hunting for seed. Thus, by reason of these foul seeds being difficult to discover and by reason of the farmer having no means of clearing them out, it would be a great hardship to subject them to the provisions of this Bill. Then, the hon. minister knows perfectly well that no farmer would have the receptacles, bags, boxes, or packages, which are designated here. He does not have such things. He has only the ordinary grain bags that he uses. My hon. friend (Mr. Fowler) who is a lawyer says : ' Let him ge them. It is not an easy thing for the farmer to get them.' That is not the custom of the farmer. It is entirely out of his routine of work. The farmer simply sells his grain or exchanges it with his neighbour and if this Bill were applied every one of these persons would come under its provisions. It seems to me that the hon. minister ought to confine the provisions of this Bill to persons engaged as dealers. It would greatly minimize the evil effects that would come from sowing foul seeds and it would give relief to a class of persons who will find it difficult to comply with the law. Even in the exceptions the farmer is not relieved from its provisions :
Any person selling seeds direct to merchants to be cleaned and graded before being offered for sale for the purpose of seeding.
AVell, he cannot tell. He has practically no exemption there beyond the exemption that applies if he sells for the purpose of food. I venture to say that in many cases there is no inquiry made as to whether grain is sold for food or not. The farmer goes into market with a load of grain. In many cases seed dealers are shippers as well. They ship large quantities that they do not make any pretense of selling for seed at all. Yet, immense quantities are bought for seed and the farmer sells in the ordinary way to a grain buyer who is also a seed dealer. He does not sell it for seed; he sells it generally. He simply sells it and he is liable unless he can prove that he did not sell it for seed. The provisions of section 4, it seems to me, impose impossible penalties upon the farmer.


George William Fowler: I must disagree entirely with the hon. member for Bothwell (Mr. Clancy) in respect to this matter. I see no reason in the world why farmers who sell seed should not be put under the same penalty as a dealer who sells impure seed. I think this Bill is in the right direction and that the hon. Minister of Agriculture is to be congratulated upon having produced such a Bill. Let any man go through the country, through Ontario, or through the maritime provinces and he will find nearly every farm he passes is polluted with these foul seeds. This is becoming a very serious matter, and I think this step has not been taken one day too soon. Of course, there will be hardships. There are always hardships, but private interests must give way to public good and I think the farmer should be put upon the same plane as the dealer in connection with this matter. As to what the hon. member for Bothwell has said about the farmer selling his load of grain being

liable, be is not liable if be sells that grain generally without selling it for seed. It is impossible to interpret the Act in the way the hon. member for Bothwell does. He is not liable unless he sells his grain for seed and he should be exactly under the same penalties as the ordinary dealer if he sells it for seed.


William Ross: Mr. Chairman, I think it will be conceded that one of the most valuable products we have in Canada is our seed grain, especially in Ontario. By degrees, in the years to come the trade thinks, at any rate, that a large quantity if not the most of the wheat produced in Canada will be grown on the western prairies. This will make the seed crop-the grass and clover crop of Ontario-more valuable from year to year and the area' will constantly extend. Under these circumstances I can readily see that it is absolutely necessary that some law should be put in force in order to regulate the sale of such an important farm product as seeds. The hon. member for Halton (Mr. Henderson) said that the hon. minister should go farther and provide that the farmer should clean his soil and that he should cut the noxious weeds or if possible pull them out. I understand that in Ontario we already have a law dealing with noxious weeds not only on the roadway but on the farms, but I am told it is not lived up to. I think, perhaps, that may be on account of the fact that the responsibility of inforcing the law is placed upon the municipalities and the municipalities do not accept their responsibility in that connection. The three great seeds which are most largely grown in Ontario are red clover, alsike and timothy. I have been told that we, in Ontario, are the largest producers of alsike clover in the world. Standing in that position it is absolutely necessary that we should have some standard of excellence with the view of bringing this product up to the finest seed that can be grown in the world. We grow some very fine samples, but when it comes a year in which weeds are prolific and when they grow rapidly they oftentimes fill up the crop and unless they are cut down at a particular season of the year, or unless they can try and cut them from the top of the clover, there is apt to be a quantity of foul seed with the clover seed. One seed that is found in nearly all of it is the mustard. Particularly will mustard be found in red clover and alsike. I have seen samples of timothy with mustard in, but it is a rare tiling to get mustard in timothy because in cleaning it the mustard seed runs back over the sieve and the timothy drops through. Timothy seed will have an occasional mustard but it will have other seeds which are a very great hindrance to the growing crop. The ox-eye daisy has been mentioned. This seed it very common in timothy. We have also a little wild flax occasionally. I handle Mr. FOWLER.
seeds myself and I often see samples of seeds with ' thistle ' in them. It seemsi to be very common in the ' timothy,' but I do not think you can get any thistle in alsike or in red clover. No one can travel throughout this country and look at the grasses and the clover without seeing in some cases large quantities of those noxious weeds. Somebody must be responsible for that. The provincial legislation on the subject does not appear to work, but a law like this which would get at the root of the evil will, I believe, be acceptable to the trade and to the farmers. I would, however, suggest that in line 8 of clause 3 after the word ' seeding ' there should be inserted the words ' within the Dominion of Canada.'
No person shall sell or offer, expose or have in his possession for sale for the purpose of seeding within the Dominion of Canada, any seeds, &c.
In connection with these seeds that are brought to the man who wholesales them, he cleans the seeds as a rule and he sells the best. At certain seasons of the year he has a lot of stuff left which you may call ' cleanings,' and these are shipped out of the country. I am told by a seedsman that they are not sold within the country, but they are exported because there is a demand for them in the old land where they are used for mixing purposes. I am told that a certain amount of weeds are put with the other grasses, but that they cannot grow some of the seeds which we have here to the perfection they do in this country, and that under these circumstances these cleanings find a good market outside of Canada.
I would therefore suggest that the clause be amended as I have indicated. If the amendment be made, the seedsman could not have these seeds in his possession for sale; he could have them for export purposes, but he could not have them for sale for domestic purposes, whereas under the Bill as it now stands he could not have them in. his possession for any purpose. He would therefore have to burn this stuff which has value for export. These ' cleanings ' are not shipped out of the country on consignment. It is not like the apple trade in that respect. Apples are shipped to Liverpool or Glasgow on consignment and sold at public auction, but I am informed that there is not a bushel of seed shipped out of Canada on commission. If we prevent this stuff being sold in Canada, there should be no reason for a man having to destroy it if he can find a value for it outside of the country.


James Clancy: My hon. friend must have lost his vision or else he lives in a strange part of the country, because I appeal to any farmer in this House if it is not the rarest thing possible to find mustard in a meadow of alsike, red clover, or timothy. Occasionally it may occur but it is very rare. It does not follow that the land is not saturated with the seed of these weeds that may

lie in the soil for years and years, but it does not come up until the ground is disturbed. The strange thing about it is that this seed seldom appears in a meadow. My hon. friend has had a strange experience if he has seen meadows in this country polluted with the foul weeds to which he refers. I do not agree with the hon. gentleman for King's (Mr. Fowler) that the farmers can readily comply with the provisions of section 4. I would have no hesitation in accepting the hon. gentleman's opinion on a question of law, but he will excuse me I hope if I hesitate to accept his opinion on a question affecting the farmers of this country. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Fowler) has no experience in the matter, but I can tell him that it will be practically impossible for the farmers to comply with the provisions of this Bill which require him to have his initials and surname in full upon the receptacle of every bushel of seed he sells to his neighbour.


George William Fowler: Can't he write.


James Clancy: I would not cast suoh a reflection as my hon. friend does upon the farmers of this country.


George William Fowler: It is you who have east a reflection on them.


James Clancy: Not at all. 1 am simply pointing out that it is highly inconvenient and that it is absolutely unnecessary. I say that it is impossible also for the farmer to have the designation of every grade of seed stamped. A farmer would have to be supplied with quite a number of appliances before he could sell a bushel of clover or , timothy to his neighbour. The minister must see how inconvenient this would be and I am sure he will modify it. I have no objection to pass stringent measures with regard to seed dealers who have all the appliances at hand, but I do think that it would be unnecessary and useless to impose such conditions on farmers who sell or exchange thousands and thousands of bushels of seeds between themselves.


George William Fowler: The argument of the hon. gentleman is a strong reason why the Bill should be allowed to remain as it is. If thousands and thousands of bushels of seeds are exchanged or sold between farmers, it means that thousands and thousands of acres of land are exposed to be fouled by bad seeds. If it were only an occasional thing it might be overlooked, but if it is such an extensive practice as the hon. gentleman (Mr. Clancy) makes out, then the provisions of the Bill should be enforced. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Clancy) thinks that it would be a great task for the farmer to put his name upon the receptacle containing the seed, but I believe that the farmers of Canada are so well educated that they would have no difficulty in doing that. I am surprised that my hon. friend (Mr. Clancy) who poses as a farmer in this
House should cast such a slur upon the farmers of Canada. It would be a long time before I would do that sort of thing. I do not think the hon. gentleman weighed well his words when he made use of them. With regard to the name of the seed, surely the farmer would know the kind of seed he was selling, having its name and grade on the bag. He would be a strange sort of farmer if he did not know whether the seed he was selling was good seed or poor seed. I do not see any difficulty in the matter. It is so simple to me that I am surprised that the hon. gentleman should take the exception to it that he does. I think I am about as much a farmer as the hon. member for Bothwell. I understand that he lives in a town and has a farm in the country. I am pretty much in the same position. I think I have as much knowledge of farming as he has, and I trust that the minister will not be influenced by the statements of the hon. member for Bothwell, but will leave the Bill just as it is.


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER.: As the discussion is entirely on the fourth section of the Bill, I think it would be better for the committee to carry the third section, and then the discussion- will be in order.


James Clancy: The two sections are so intimately connected that they cannot be discussed very well apart.


Peter Macdonald: If it is the will of the committee, we will discuss the two together and pass the two together.


Mr. GILMOTJR.: This Bill is in the right direction, and if it can be complied with, will be a great boon to the country. The farmer can comply with the law in this way. He can see before he cuts his crop, whether there is foul seed in it or not. He can tell better when it is growing than he can after it is threshed. In the latter case the seedsman is the only person who has the proper machinery to test the seeds. I believe the firm of the hon. member for Hamilton for the past thirty-five years have been the foremost seedsmen in the land, and have always had the name of selling the purest seeds, and I think he should be consulted in this matter. I am sorry he is not present, and I think the hon. minister would do well to let the Bill stand until the hon. member for Hamilton can be present. I do not think a merchant or a lawyer can tell how these seeds can be cleaned. It is a question that lies between such a man as the hon. member for Hamilton and the farmer. Even the minister himself could not decide the matter as well as these two combined.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: 1 quite agree with the hon. member for East Middlesex (Mr. Gilmour). I would not presume to give an opinion such as the hon. member for Hamilton could give on this

question, and it is only because X have had the advantage of expert knowledge at my disposal as a minister that I am able to take part in the discussion as intelligently as I have been trying to do. One or two points have been brought out which I would like to refer to. It is true that a great many of the dealers are not experts, and the farmers cannot be expected to be. But they can see their fields, and the object of section 3 is largely to cause the dealers absolutely to refuse to buy seeds from farmers who have had these weeds in their fields. Some of these seeds even an expert dealer with the best machinery would find it very difficult indeed to remove from timothy or clover seeds. But with this clause in operation, I believe, the seed dealers will refuse to buy from farmers who have these weeds in their land ; and that is the chief objection I have to the amendment of my hon. friend from South Ontario (Mr. Ross), who proposes to introduce into this clause words which would confine its operation to the trade in Canada. If we can cause the seed dealers to refuse to buy from the farmers who have these weeds in their land, we shall take the best step I believe towards purifying the seeds sold in the ordinary commerce of the country. If the dealers are allowed to buy these seeds for export, they will still continue to buy them from farmers who have foul land; and though they may not sell them in Canada, we will to a great extent be deprived of the benefit of this clause. When we come to clause 4, I shall be disposed to modify that so that its provisions shall not apply to the export trade, but I think it is very important that clause 3 should apply to all the trade in the country including the export trade. My hon. friend from Bothwell spoke a few minutes ago with regard to a farmer selling seed for food and not knowing what it was used for after he sold it. If a farmer sold a hundred or a tnousand bushels of oats to a grain dealer for ordinary food purposes, and not for seed purposes, he would not be responsible. If a merchant chooses to clean a supply of oats and then marked and sold, them wrongfully under section 3 of this Act, he would be responsible. Section 6 covers the sale by the farmer, not only for the purposes of food, but also to a dealer to be recleaned and sold for seed purposes. In such cases the farmer is not responsible.


James Clancy: What about section 4 ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: If one farmer buys seed from another, the seller can easily be relieved from the necessity of complying with this Bill by making a special agreement, and if he chooses to sell without making any such agreement he ought to be responsible for the quality of his seed just as the merchant is.


James Clancy: But according to section 4, the farmer would be responsible even if Hon. Mr. FISHER.
he sold pure seed, unless each sack or bag was marked as indicated in this clause. The hon. minister has pointed out this section only refers to grass seed, but it is in such seeds that the foul seeds are most difficult to discern. Under this section a farmer could not go to his neighbour and buy a bushel of clover seed and take it home and sow it, without subjecting his neighbour to the penalties therein provided. The hon. gentleman knows that two farmers would not sit down and write a special agreement absolving the seller.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: The hon. member for Middlesex (Mr. Gil-mour) spoke about dealers not being experts. I am glad to say that we have been able in our city laboratory to provide machinery by which any dealer may reasonably be expected to become an expert. AVe have taken steps to provide specimens of all these weed seeds mentioned in this Bill, so that the seed merchants can get these specimens at a trifling cost and be able, with the *aid of a magnifying glass and an ordinary sheet of paper, to examine their seeds and recognize the weeds very clearly. We also have instructions prepared, which may be had for the asking, so that the merchants may without difficulty test seeds for their germinating power.


Aaron Abel Wright: One fault found with this Bill is that it would prevent one farmer from selling to his neighbour. It seems to me there need be no difficulty about that. Suppose a farmer wants to buy from his neighbour. The neighbour says :	You understand what the law is ; if I sell you this [DOT] grain for seed I shall be responsible unless my bags are marked with my initials and the grade :	I will not sell you this grain
for seed, but if you want to buy four or five bushels I will sell it to you. So the man can buy it and do what he likes with it. He gets seed that he knows to be good, and is perfectly satisfied. I cannot see any difficulty as to this branch of the subject at all. As a dealer in seeds for thirty-two years I regard this as one of the most important measure's for our farmers ever introduced in this Dominion parliament. If there is one thing witli which we have had more trouble than any other it is with the selling of clover and timothy seed. The farmers in our section are anxious to use clover. They sow it with every crop, in order that, after the grain crop is harvested, they may let it grow and then turn it over in the fall to enrich the soil. This seeding of clover is one of the most important features of their farming, but the difficulty is in getting foul seed, particularly mustard seed. As the hon. member for Bothwell (Mr. Clancy) says, it is rare to find mustard seed growing in timothy, yet, as he says, that seed will remain in the ground for ten, fifteen, or perhaps as much as twenty

years, and yet germinate when yon turn up the soil. Farmers will give almost any price if they can be sure ol: getting good seed, seed that is perfectly pure and clean. Therefore, I think this Bill is in the right direction. As to exporting foul seed, I cannot agree with my hon. friend from Ontario (Mr. Boss). We should be obliged to export good seed, just as we export good butter or cheese. We want to have a reputation for first-class seed. I suppose there are a number of dealers here to-night, and I would appeal to them if it is not true that when we are buying seeds, say mangel seeds, the traveller will tell us the name of the grower in Belgium or France. We know the names of the best growers. They have a reputation, and that reputation sells their seeds. Why should we not have a reputation in the old country for our seeds, just as some of these European growers have a reputation in this country ? Certainly we should do all in our power to prevent foul seed being exported and sold as coming from this country.
Mr. SPROuLE. It is impossible it this Bill becomes law but that many farmers will violate that law". It is the custom for farmers everywhere to sell seed. They grow It and sell it for seed, because they get a few cents a bushel more profit. In my county a large number of farmers sell seed to farmers, but as well many sell it to seedsmen. This provides that the farmer shall not ' offer, expose or have in his possession for sale for the purpose of seeding ' any of these seeds, except as provided in this Bill. It will be impossible to carry out this law without many farmers coming under its penalties. They will regard it as a very great hardship. I admit the desirability of trying to prevent the use of seed containing an admixture of the seeds of noxious weeds. The minister said liis aim was to have seedsmen not buy seeds from farmers who have dirty seed. If farmers who have dirty seed are prevented from selling, nine-tenths of them will suffer. Not one case in ten, or perhaps, even in twenty, if they sold for seed, but would come under the penalties of this Act. If you carry out the law, you stop the only market the farmers have. You compel them then to sell to the seedsmen only. Nobody could purchase except for the purpose of exportation. The Bill provides that No. 1 grade of seed must have 90 per cent of germinable seed. The hon. minister says that they have a system at the Experimental Farm, which any farmer could learn, to test the germinating power of the seed. Farmers will not go into that very much. I have heard this talked up at farmers' institutes, and so on


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I was referring to seed merchants when I spoke of that.


Mr. SPROULE.: How can the farmers designate the seeds under these regulations,
as grading No. 1, No. 2 or No. 3, when many of them do not know these weed seeds when they see them ? I happen to have my office in a drug store where they buy seed year after year. And when a farmer is told that there are certain weed seeds in the seed he is selling, he is as likely as not to say :
' What are they like ; I do not know them ? ' Then the seed is spread out ori a paper on the counter and the weed seeds shown to him. These men are innocent as to violating the law, because they do not know the appearance of many of these minor seeds. It may be said that they could furnish themselves with a glass. I do not know that every farmer will do that. But even with that, he could not test how much of his seed is germinable seed. I notice the minister has not included turnip seed under this Bill. I find of late years a good deal of the wild mustard that is distributed amongst farmers is distributed in turnip seed. Almost every year where "turnips are growing we find wild mustard growing in the field. I have looked at it, but I frankly confess that I am not sure that I can tell at a glance the difference between mustard and some other seeds. If the farmer finds that what he lias bought for turnip or grass seed is full of ox-eye daisies, and he desires to enter an action against the seedsman for damages, could he, provided that law7 passes, sustain that action. Under this law, if there is more than the designated percentage of weed seeds, I venture to say, as a layman, that the seedsman would not be liable for damages to the purchaser. He wrnuld be liable only to the penalties of the law, but not for damages as w7ell. I see this young man shaking his head at it ; I do not know what significance there is in that. I do not know what his experience may be in seeds, or his legal knowledge, that would justify dissent from my statement. But I Venture to say that there are lawyers in this House who will hold that the seedsman would not be liable to an action for damages in the event of his selling seeds after this law was passed, even though there was no specific contract entered into guaranteeing that these goods were absolutely pure.


William Ross: It would be a difficult thing, in fact almost impossible, to tell mustard from turnip seed, especially in some varieties. But in clause 12 the samples of this seed are to be taken within seven days of the sale, therefore, suppose a man sells his seed two or three months before it is required for sale, if it is out of his possession for seven days, according to that clause he is not responsible, and the man in whose possession it is found is responsible. This is a matter, however, that w7e can discuss later on. Now, with regard to the inspection of seeds. We have an inspection of grain, and I may safely say there is no grain, especially in this country, that it is not graded when inspected for export. It is graded No. 1, No. 2. No. 3. It is

very seldom they will take rejected grain, the grain is all graded. You notice how Manitoba grades come down, No. 1 hard, No. 2 hard, No. 1 northern, No. 2 northern, and so oh down the list. But if some of that grain happens to be frosted they will call it No. 1 frosted, or No. 2 frosted, because it will have some frosted wheat in it. Grain is inspected that way, and I think the seed law can be worked out in the same way. It is no more hardship for the farmer or the dealer to have his grain inspected, than it is for the dealer to have his seed inspected. Now, there are two places in which the dealer can sell his goods. In the first place he has the home market, and in the next place he haS the export market, and those who are in the trade know that the export market is by far the largest market for Canada. It is a trade worth looking after. Tens of thousands of bushels of clover seed are shipped out of this country. It is frequently bought in the United States, and is shipped out. It is a superior quality to that which is grown anywhere on this continent.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Who is it that buys for export ? Is it not the seedsman, who sells to the farmers again ?


William Ross: Yes, but it often happens that the Ontario crop is a superior quality, superior to the crop in Wisconsin, or Indiana, or some of those states. The large market in the States for seeds is Toledo, and the merchants will probably export our prime Canadian clover seed and alsike, and they may be able to bring in American clover to take its place, because they have to pay the farmer a larger price for the Canadian seed. Under these circumstances you can see that the export market is a very large market in Canada. I cannot agree with the hon. member for Renfrew (Mr. Wright) that there would be any injustice in allowing the rejected seed to be exported. What are you going to do with these cleanings that come out of this seed V The seed must be cleaned up to a certain standard. The seedsman makes perhaps three, or four, or five grades of alsike, he will have a name for each grade.


James Clancy: Are there as many grades us that ?


William Ross: Yes, as high as six grades of alsike. Alsike is a variable crop. One year when the crop is poor I have seen myself eight or ten different samples, no two of them alike, every grade different from the others. An exporter sends these samples home to the old country or to German}', and he sells upon these samples. Now, in cleaning these samples he has a lot of stuff that comes out and is rejected. That is known as an inferior seed. People in other countries, if they choose to buy this seed, know what they are buying, it does not ruin the reputation of Canadian seed because a good deal of our best seed has Mr. ROSS (Ontario).
been shipped every year, and still they may want this refuse seed, which is worth anywhere from one to three cents a pound. Why not let that trade go on ? It is not going to ruin our grain trade, because they know that we grow good seeds here. I cannot see why that seed should be burned up or destroyed, or that the seedsmen should not be allowed to sell it in a foreign country. I would say, don't let it be sold in Canada, because there is a trade beyond Canada, and if the foreign trade is stopped because the seed is bad, then the alternative would be to destroy the seed or burn it up. Under these circumstances I think my proposition to insert ' sale of these seeds within the Dominion of Canada ' is a proper one. I would ask the minister if he has found any vegetables in weeds which are injurious, otherwise than turnip seed, which might contain mustard ?


Jabel Robinson: The Minister of Agriculture is to be congratulated in introducing this Bill. If he will make this Bill workable and succeed in eradicating foul seeds from this country so that our fields will grow nothing but what is sown on them, he will double the value of our farms. I am satisfied that the foul weeds grown in this country compose more than half of our crops. Though the minister may not be able to accomplish that much, still he is taking a step in the right direction. But we want to make this Bill so that it will not be obnoxious to the farmers and to people who raise seeds in this country. Now this section 4 says distinctly that the farmer must have his Christian name and surname on the bag of grain that he exposes for sale. Well, the farmers can all read and write, there is no doubt about that, but they have not all got bags with their names on. Again, farmers oftentimes sell to each other. Farmers that live miles from a town, or miles from a seedsman, often sell to each other. Any farmer who has a farm with a reputation for being a clean farm, and has no foul weeds in it, or none to speak of, can always sell his seed at home, whether it be seed wheat, or barley, or oats, or anything else. The neighbours all round go there to purchase seed on the farm's reputation. Consequently he has no trouble to get rid of his crop. But if there should be a few foul seeds in that grain, he is under a penalty if he sells it, unless he takes it to a seedsman. It will amount to this, that we shall have to establish seedsmen in every township. We will have to take our grain and our seeds of all kinds to them, before we can dispose of it, and have it run through mills in order to decide the question whether it is clean. I invariably run my seed wheat two or three times through a fanning mill in order to get it perfectly clean. There is some grain that it is impossible to clean thoroughly from foul seed. So if there is one foul seed in the grain-I do not see any margin left, it must all be pure

and clean-the farmer is responsible. But it is utterly impossible to take every foul seed out of a bag of clover or timothy or anything else. I remember one time purchasing a very choice variety of wheat from a seedsman in Toronto. He wrote and asked me if I would let him have the wheat that I produced from that seed. I told him I would do so, but when I threshed that wheat I found that there were some wild pea seeds in it. As I had told him I would let him have the seed I felt bound to do so. Myself and my boys went down on our knees and picked out every wild pea there was in that twenty bushels of wheat so particular was I in regard to my reputation for selling seed containing no foul seeds. Unfortunately many of us are not so particular and we must have a strict law to eradicate noxious weeds from our fields. I want to protect the farmer in this matter. The farmer generally looks out for himself, but I want to make sure that he is not made the victim of the seedsman. As I said before, and as the hon. member for East Grey (Mr. Sproule) has stated, oftentimes they are not seedsmen proper who purchase the seed but druggists and men who deal in all kinds of produce in the villages and towns. They have no facilities for cleaning it up. If the passage of this Bill will induce some men in each township to get screens that Will properly take out every foul seed and compel the farmers to take their seed to that man before sowing it and get it thoroughly cleaned the farmers will be, well paid for going there. Although I would like to see the Bill passed I would like to have it amended so as to be made workable. I think it will do a great deal of good in this country if it will' result in improving the quality of our seeds.


William Findlay Maclean: I think the Bill has a good object in view, and I am inclined to support it. I happen to know something of land where there are a lot of noxious weeds and the result is that there are some farms that are not worth $20 or $30 while neighbouring farms are worth three or four times that amount and these neighbouring farms will be worth six times that if it were not for these farms adjoining being filled with these noxious weeds. Something must be done to eradicate them, and I do not see any way of doing it except by legislation. It is fl strange thing to note that when legislation is introduced in the interests of the farmer it is sure to meet with opposition on the ground that it is against the farmer. There is a certain hardship in it no doubt, but I think it is a very reasonable provision. I do not think any farmer should be justified in doing wrong. He should not pass bad money because the law is against him and he should not sell bad seed for the same reason. I think if he sells bad seed he should be made amenable to the law the same as any other person.


James Clancy: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Maclean) forgets that he is under penalty whether he sells bad seed or not.


William Findlay Maclean: The farmers should not enjoy a preferred position any more than anybody else. What we want is a law that will in some measure stop the sin'ead of these foul seeds and the depreciation in value, of farms all over the country, and if we can have a reasonable law that does not involve too much hardship it would be a very good thing, and I would like to see it go through the House. It is in the, interest of the farmers. Progress is being made in regard to farming which is largely due to legislation on the part of the various bodies in the direction of improving farming. We are doing something in this country and we have done something in the way of improving agriculture. We have succeeded in accomplishing a good deal, but yet, whenever a proposition is put forward to improve the position of the farmer the objection is taken that some how it is going to work to the injury of the farmer. It is for the farmer's good. It may work some injury but if there is a law for the general good the farmers should be made subject to that law the same as other people.


Robert Lorne Richardson: Mr. Chairman, I am thoroughly in accord with the purpose of this Bill. There.seem to be difficulties in the way of it being workable. A good deal has been said about farmers and farmers interests being protected. It may not be generally known how the large bulk of seeds of the country are marketed. The large bulk of the seeds are sold to small dealers throughout the country, some engaged in other businesses, such as the drug business, who buy direct from the farmers. Many of these men buy from and sell again to the farmers and thousands of these men who are now in business would probably be_ put out of business by the operation of this Bill as it stands at present. There would be very few instances in which the men engaged in this business would be found to be seed experts or analysts, Yet, by the operation of this Bill a man buying seed of a farmer and believing it to be pure, might be liable to incur the penalties of this Bill if upon a sample being drawn and sent to a seed analyst it were found to contain weed seeds. Provision is made for the grading of seed. Who is to grade it ? Who is to say whether seed is No. 1, No. 2, or No. 3 ? I just throw these observations out to show some of the difficulties that are in the way. I would suppose that facilities should be provided by the experimental farm so that every one engaged in dealing in seeds could gain as accurate a knowledge as possible of the character of weed seeds that are found more particularly in turnip and clover seeds. I obtained a number of samples myself for one person engaged in this business. But, you would need to do

648S
more than this; you would need to provide some practical Instruction in order that the dealer might be able to test samples of seeds submitted to him for sale. Without some provision of this kind the operation of the Bill would lead to great difficulties all over the country. The result of which would be that people engaged in this business would practically be put out of business. I would not throw any obstacle in the way of making it a practicable measure as far as possible, but a thorough ventilation of it in all its phases, ought to be made in the committee.


Sir.   J.@: GIRARD (Chicoutimi and Saguenay) (Translation.) Mr. Chairman, the Bill now under discussion is the most important that has ever been submitted to parliament in the interest of the farmers. It is a well known fact in the province of Quebec and throughout Canada, that the worst evil farmers have to contend with is the spread of weed seeds. They come on us unawares, spread like wildfire, and attempts to eradicate them, which generally end in failure, require a heavy expenditure.
As stated by the hon. Minister of Agriculture, for a long time past, farmers' clubs and farmers generally have urged on our public men the need of a law which would enable them to put a stop to the spread of weed seeds. I have much pleasure in congratulating the hon. minister on having prepared a Bill which seems to me to cover pretty well the whole ground, and which, I expect, will have the desired result. However, the Bill should not deal merely with weed seeds ; it should deal also with the germinating power of seed grain. It is contended that this Bill goes a little too far. To my mind, weed seeds are not any better than poisonous substances. The law regulating the sale of these substances by druggists is very strict; however, its need for the protection of the public is generally admitted. I cannot see why we should not have a law just as strict to prevent growers and sellers of noxious seeds from palming them on tire community, for they are poison to the land, and the land is tne source of all agricultural wealth. It is most important that the latter should be provided with the best seeds available, since efforts to convince them of the desirability of growing their own grain and grass seeds have failed.
It has also been contended that this Bill will impose on the farmer conditions, as mentioned in the various sections, which he cannot comply with, besides entailing heavy expenses. The farmer sees his crops growing ; he is in a position to judge of the quality of the grain. Therefore he is at fault if he does not instruct the buyer as to the quality of the product; and for the same reason later on, the wholesale or retail dealer will offer for sale inferior seeds, without advising the buyer. Should the proposed Bill do away with the neglectful Mr. RICHARDSON. ,
habits, to say the least, of many of our farmers and seedsmen, that would be, to my mind a good reason for carrying it through. These neglectful habits have become too general ; we should endeavour to correct them, if possible; and consequently I think, the provisions of the Bill should apply to producers as well as to sellers of poor seeds. Under the provisions of the Bill, both the farmer and the dealer are compelled to have their seeds inspected before putting them on the market ; or else they have to advise the buyer of the facts. Otherwise, they are liable to pay heavy fines, which is only fair, to my mind.
It has also been stated that under the provisions of this Bill, seedsmen will be liable to heavy penalties on account of the many requirements which are therein laid down. I know of farmers and farmers' clubs who have purchased seed grain grown in other parts of the country specially with a view to improving their crops, and these seeds failed to germinate, 'the result being a total loss for the too confident buyer. And the dealer would allege that he acted in good faith, that he had not guaranteed anything, and would leave the farmer suffer the whole loss. Is that fair, Mr. Chairman, should not the seller be held responsible under such circumstances ? By providing that the producer and seller shall guarantee the germinating power of the seeds they supply and making them liable for any losses inflicted on 'the buyer through these inferior seeds, we shall be protecting farmers to a great extent against a ruinous evil.
I am a farmer myself ; I have the honour to represent a newly settled and rapidly developing district. Its virgin lands certainly do not contain any foul seeds ; and nevertheless, we are already obliged to wage war on weeds, which spread rapidly, as we are buying from outside, large quantities of agricultural seeds. I am glad to acknowledge that generally Canadian seeds are not as foul as others ; but a large proportion, all the same, is not absolutely pure.
Once more I congratulate the hon. Minister of Agriculture on having had the good sense and courage to introduce this Bill, heedless of unpopularity (should unpopularity attach to it); for his intention is, by means of a judicious and strict law to protect to the utmost limit possible the great farming interests of the country.


The MINISTER OP AGRICULTURE.: I may say that I have had the pleasure of meeting some of the electors of my hon. friend (Mr. Girard) in the district of Lake St. John and Chicoutimi, and amongst the requests in favour of a Bill of this kind, has come most urgently a request from his county. There the people are cultivating land, which is comparatively speaking, new, in a district of extreme richness and fertility and great possibilities for agricultural de-

velopment, and where fortunately up to the present time they are not troubled with weeds as we In the older parts of Canada are. I can appreciate well their extreme desire to be protected from the introduction of the bad weeds whiok the older parts of Canada are suffering from to such an extent. There are one or two points in the discussion which it would be as well to clear up as there seems to be a misconception about them. Section 3 which is under discussion is applicable to all cereals, grasses, clovers forage plants or vegetables. That includes certain very bad weeds which have been picked out by the experts as being the weeds that no seed sold in Canada ought to contain for whatever purpose they are sold. Section 4 deals with only the seeds of timothy, red clover and alsike and does not apply to the seeds of ordinary cereals. A good deal of the discussion bas turned on the farmers sale of large seeds, meaning the ordinary grain seeds. Section 4 does not apply to that, and consequently the farmers can carry on that trade without being liable to the penalties under the Act. Section 4, however, does apply to the farmer who sells his neighbour red clover, alsike or timothy, and he is obliged to put his name upon the package and the name of the seed and the grade. My hon. friend from Bothwell said that even if the farmer sold a practically pure seed he was liable to the penalty. He is only liable if he refuses to write his name or put the name of the seed on the package. If he puts the grade on he declares what kind of seed it is and he will not be liable to the penalty. Surely it is not too much to ask the farmer when he has to put his name on it to state the kind of seed, and if he is selling pure seed to put the grade on it. I cannot consider that this would be any hardship. If he is selling his seed to his neighbour which does contain adulterated seed he ought to be liable to the penalty just as anybody else who undertakes to sell such seeds. I am not prepared to advocate that the farmer should be free from the responsibility which he himself expects should attach to another person when the course of trade is reversed.


William Ross: Who would be better able than the farmer himself who grows the seed to judge whether it is pure or not?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Yes, and if he knows that his field is- free from weeds he can say that his seed is free from weeds. I do not think any person would complain of the farmer being liable to the penalty under the circumstances.


James Clancy: Many farmers who have grown grain all their lives are not able to draw the distinction which would enable them to grade it. It is only an expert who can do that.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: We have provided ourselves with the necessary machinery for properly grading seeds, and if a farmer chooses to send his samples of seed to the laboratory we can tell him what it contains.


James Clancy: Does the hon. gentleman mean to say that before a farmer could sell a bushel of clover seed to his nearest neighbour, he would be compelled to send it down here to have a report made upon it ? If that is the case, let me tell the hon. gentleman that it is absolute nonsense.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: The hon. gentleman may choose to say so. If the farmer wants to sell his seed as No.
1 quality, he can sell it as such by sending a sample of it and getting it graded as No. ]. If he thinks he is not safe in selling it as No. 1, he can grade it as No. 2. I confess that I have not yet seen an amendment to this clause which would accomplish what my hon. friend wishes, and at the same time retain the efficiency of the Act ; nor have I been able to draw up such an amendment. If the hon. gentleman will draw up a clause which will do so, I shall be glad to accept it. The explanation which I have given will show how the farmer can protect himself if he wants to enter into this kind of trade. The hon. member for South Grey (Mr. Richardson) spoke a few minutes ago of the very large proportion of seeds sold in that way between farmers. I venture to say, so far as grass seeds, clover, alsike and timothy are concerned, that except for a small portion of western Ontario, the great bulk of these seeds pass through the hands of the wholesale seed dealers all over Canada.


James Clancy: I am endeavouring to make the Bill as perfect as possible without being harassing, and I think the hon. gentleman has found the solution of the difficulty I am pointing out. The hon. gentleman is quite right in saying that in only a small portion of the whole Dominion of Canada is the seed sold other than through wholesale dealers. If that be the case, why not confine the Bill to the seed dealers, who compose 99 per cent of those who are dealing with seed, and exempt the farmers from these regulations which it is impossible for them to fulfil, seeing that only a small section of them would be affected ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: The hon. gentleman suggests that as a compromise, which is worthy of consideration, although I fear that the farmers in that part of the country who want to buy seeds from their neighbours would not be altogether satisfied with the proposal. However, as I said at the beginning of the discussion. that I wanted suggestions, and as I do not wish to lay myself open to the accusation of being unduly set in my opinion, I am quite willing to take that suggestion

into consideration. It will, however, come into section 4, and when we come to that section, we can let it stand, to see if any such amendment can he worked out with safety.


David Henderson: I would ask the minister ^that he thinks of striking out the word ' vegetables ' ? In reading section 4, I am at a loss as to what is the true meaning of the Act. It is a question in my mind whether it is the package, the sack, or the bag from which the seed is sold that must be stamped, or whether it is the receptacle into which the merchant puts the seed for the farmer to take it away ? If it is the latter, it would involve such an enormous amount of work as to make it almost impracticable. If the grade of the seed and the name of the seller had to be stamped on all these little flve-cent packages of cabbage seed, onion seed and other small garden seed.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: My hon. friend will find that the word ' vegetables ' does not occur in section 4, which requires the marking on the package. It occurs in section 3 only.


David Henderson: Well, what about striking out the word ' vegetables ' 1


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I understand that the word ' vegetables ' is required for the purpose of covering the seeds of roots which are used for farm purposes, such as turnips, mangolds, carrots, and rape. In mangold seeds, I believe that wild oats not infrequently occur. Of course, it may be said that in the root crops, where tlie land is thoroughly hoed, the destruction of weeds is not very difficult, and if the word ' vegetables ' were struck out, it would not interfere seriously with the aim of the Bill. At the same time, it was thought well to include that word and make the Bill applicable to these root crops so far as section 3 is concerned.


Jabel Robinson: I suppose the minister is aware that some seeds will not grow after they are two years old. Has he made any provision for them ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: The grading show's. Grade No. 1 requires therefore, that there should be 90 per cent of good growing seeds in the sample sold.


Jabel Robinson: How is it possible for the purchaser to know old seed from new ? There are some seeds, such as parsnips, which will not grow the second year. It would be as injurious to the farmer to sow a crop and not have it come up as to sow foul seed.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: If a seedsman sells seeds which will not grow, he certainly is injuring the purchaser. The dealer and the purchaser can always test the seed. If a purchaser buys seed and has


Sydney Arthur Fisher: any suspicion of it, he can send a sample to the laboratory here and have it tested for germination just as well as for weeds. Or he may test it himself. It is a simple thing to take 100 or 200 seeds and germinate them in a piece of blotting paper moistened at a certain temperature. In a day or two, or a week or twro, according to the seed he is testing, he will see what percentage are good. If he then wishes to take out a prosecution, his safest way is to send samples of seed to the laboratory, because the report of the laboratory will be conclusive proof. But he can test the seeds at home, and then swear what percentage was not germinable.


Jabel Robinson: But usually the purchaser of the seeds has not time to germinate them. He wants to put them in the ground as soon as he gets them. I think that the seller ought to be responsible for the growing. I heard the hon. member for South Ontario (Mr. Ross), a few moments ago, describing the different grade of seeds growing in his county-1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th. 5th and 6th of one particular seed. He said that grade 6 was such inferior stuff that there was no difficulty in shipping it to Europe and finding a sale for it. But, for heaven's sake, make a law to prevent such seeds being sold in England, because that will give a bad name to all Canadian seed.


William Ross: I think my hon. friend from Elgin (Mr. Robinson) misunderstood me. When the alsike crop is harvested and threshed, you will find sometimes a dozen samples entirely different. Of course, you could mix them up and make one sample, or you could make several samples. They would all have some measure of goodness, but some of them might have what is called ungerminable seed. It is only when the crop is uneven, when the season has been bad, that that sort of thing would occur. It does not always follow that because seed does not grow the seedsman or the seller is at fault. No one can guarantee seed to grow. If the weather, soil, and other conditions are right, the seed will germinate if good ; but if the proper conditions are not present, that seed will not germinate, or only a very small proportion. That is particularly true of garden seed. I was going to ask the hon. minster whether the term ' vegetable ' included garden seeds which are sold in small quantities, such as lettuce, cress and cabbage seeds ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Yes.


William Ross: Because they are largely sold in packages ; and although seed-men collect them every year, there are sometimes complaints from the customers that they did not think the seed was good, because it did not come up. But that does not always follow. If you have not the conditions of weather, soil, &c., you will not get good results.


Mr. C. ANGERS (Charlevoix).: (Translation). Mr. Chairman, with the indulgence of the House, I wish to join with the hon. member for Chicoutimi and Saguenay (Mr. Girard) in congratulating the lion. Minister of Agriculture on having introduced the Bill now before us. I think it will have a most decisive effect in checking the spread of weed seeds ; it would be wasting time to urge this point any further. However, X shall venture to suggest an amendment for the hon. minister's consideration, which would render it more effective. Its effect would be to protect certain parts at least of the province of Quebec against frauds inflicted on its farmers and which the latter, to my knowledge, are unable to detect beforehand. I refer to the sale of grain for seed which is not suitable for that purpose. It is to my knowledge that in the counties of Charlevoix and Chicoutimi and Saguenay, some years ago, a considerable quantity of rye was sold as spring rye, while it was an autumn variety. I know of farmers who after having sown, ten, fifteen and twenty bushels of this, did not reap a bushel the next autumn and found out to their sorrow that they had completely lost their time and money.
T remember that last year a large quantity of wheat was sold for seed, and after germinating the grain did not make enough growth to give a crop. In other words, farmers "are too often deceived as to the quality of the seed grain they buy. The evil I am pointing out may be difficult to do away with ; however, I think the hon. minister, with the practical turn of mind for which he is noted, will realize the importance of my suggestion and the need for providing a remedy.
It may be objected that farmers can protect themselves by requiring a guarantee from the dealer as to the quality of the seed grain he sells. Practically, that guarantee, does not amount to much. In the first place, many farmers buy with implicit confidence and do not require any guarantee whatever. Besides, dealers have become *cautious. They are careful to have printed on their invoices the words : ' Without any guarantee.' That has occurred on several occasions to my knowledge.
Therefore, it would be desirable, to my mind, to amend the Bill in such a way as to compel the dealer to ascertain the ger-minative power of wheat, rye and other grains which he has for sale. Such a clause might be drafted so as to protect also the farmer who, having asked for seed to be used in the spring, gets instead, seed which can be used for autumn sowing only, a practice very little followed in the province of Quebec.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE (Hon. Mr. Fisher.) (Translation).: The point raised by the hon. member for Charlevoix is surely worthy of our most serious consideration. I shall ascertain whether it is practical to draft an amendment on the lines stated by him. I must admit frankly that this Bill does not go quite as far as I would wish, but it should not be forgotten that we must learn to walk before we can run. True, this Bill does not provide for the farmers as much protection as I would have liked. I would have preferred one more comprehensive ; but it seems to me it is about all we can do just now. I may say to my hon. friend (Mr. Angers) that I shall be glad to consider his suggestion and to comply with his request if it appears to me possible to do so.
On section 3,


Mr. BELL.: It seems to me that the minister ought to take into consideration the objection made to including vegetable seeds under section 3. It will be almost impossible to conduct the seed business as it has been conducted in Canada if this Bill comes into effect, so far as concerns the seeds sold in small quantities for garden use. The Bill should be confined to the seed sold for what is generally known as field culture, such as mangles, sugar beets, turnips, and rape, if necessary. But to apply this law to seeds sold in small packages would be absolutely impossible. These seeds are, for the most part, sold to the trade in very clean form. I do not think there is much adulteration. Probably the only defect would be failure to germinate a proper proportion. At the same time, they do, as a rule germinate sufficiently to satisfy all purposes of garden crops. I believe the trade is united in being opposed to the inclusion of the small garden seeds, and I think the hon. minister should give weight to their views. I suppose this Bill would include flower seeds ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: No.


John William Bell: If flower seeds are excluded, there would be almost equally good reason for excluding these garden seeds. The minister could frame a clause which would have the effect of restricting this Bill to seeds sold for field purposes. It would be impossible to apply it to the trade in garden seeds, after having experience of the Bill for a few years, it might be possible to put in a clause then to cover this other branch of the trade.


James Gilmour: I do not see the need of including turnips and mangels, for they are sowed in rows, and weeds can be destroyed. The same is true of garden seeds. But it is quite different with grain or clover.


John McGowan: 1 would protest against the exclusion of most of these that are called garden seeds. There is more wild mustard distributed in rape and turnip seed than in

any other way, because we cannot distinguish it. The Bill should apply to field vegetables at least.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: In view of the objections raised, I may say that 1 have not been anxious to include ordinary vegetable seeds as sold in small packages, though I think it would be very easy for the seed merchants to have these seeds cleaned and to sell them so that they would conform to this Act. I sympathize with my bon. friend from Centre Wellington (Mr. McGowan) who wishes turnip and rape seed to be included under the Bill, for I know that a great deal of mustard is distributed in seed sold under these names. It is very hard to distinguish mustard from turnip or rape seed, and I have been told that it is even mixed with them intentionally. I would be glad to allow this section to stand with a view to preparing an amendment to cover the point raised by my hon. friend from Pictou (Mr. Bell) who desires the ordinary garden vegetable seeds not to be included.


William Ross: We import practically all our mangel, turnip and carrot seeds, and these should be especially provided for, to secure their purity. Some amendment might be prepared so that we could regulate this trade in a wholesale way before the seeds were put in packages and provide how long they shall stay out for sale. I am not prepared to advise the minister in regard to that, but If the Bill is to stand, that might be taken into consideration. For instance, you sell a package of seeds for five ceiits; and, if It is'not up to the standard required by the law the penalty may be $100. That is an enormous penalty for the sale of a five-cent package of seeds. Under these circumstances, it would naturally be suggested that these seeds he exempt from the operation of the law. As to the suggestion I gave to the minister with regard to the export trade, do I understand that that trade is provided for in another section of the Bill ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Yes. section 4.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: So far as this section S is concerned, either the Act will be a dead letter, or else farmers who sell seed, as many of them do, will be liable to the penalties of the Act. The custom of buying and selling seed among farmers exists in my section of the country, and the ordinary farmer cannot say what is pure seed, nor can he grade his seed with any certainty of knowing what he is doing. He has not machinery to clean it, and, even if he had, there is no machinery that will certainly remove all these weed seeds from grass and clover seeds. The seeds are of the same size and very much the same shape, and you may screen the seed as often as you like, but you Mr. McGowan.
cannot remove all these impurities. There is an establishment within twenty feet of my office where they have been handling seeds for years, and they have as good and modern machinery for cleaning seeds as there is in this country. Yet, seeds from that source, believed to be as pure as they can be made, contain a great many of these weed seeds. The seed sold by the farmer cannot be free from these weed seeds. And no farmer selling to his neighbour will enter into contract to supply pure seed.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: The farmer can sell seed to the dealer without being subject to this law.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: But the dealer who buys it is often a retail dealer who sells it to the farmer without being cleaned at all, and such a dealer cannot grade the seed.


Mr. MONK.: I have not made a careful examination of the Bill of the Minister of Agriculture, but I heard part of the remarks made by the hon. member for Charlevoix (Mr. Angers), and I am afraid this Bill will greatly interfere with the farmers. We are not prepared for that kind of legislation now. It is an interference with the liberty of trade amongst the farmers, although perhaps the object of the Bill is good. For that reason I protest against this section at the present time.
On section 4,


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: The intention is that in any particular transaction the person who sells will be liable to the penalty if he sells what he does not represent.


James Gilmour: Can he sell out of a bin?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: He would have to sell just what was marked on the bin. The country merchant or retailer buys from the wholesaler, then the country merchant or retailer would be responsible except as I propose to provide by an amendment, where the package has been sealed and the name of the wholesaler is upon it and it is sold without the seal being broken. I propose to amend by inserting after the words ' indelible manner ' at the end of the first clause of section 4, the words ' either on the receptacle, package sack or bag itself, or on a label securely attached to said receptacle, package, sack or bag.' That allows a label to be .attached to the bag instead of the bag itself being marked. This amendment is made in view of the objections which are urged by the wholesale trade who say that when they mark a bag for export especially, the receiver in the other country objects to the marking on the bag, and wants nothing to be on it except the address. But as long as the bag remains in this country it would have the label with this mark attached to it.


James Gilmour: Would the wholesaler be willing that this label should remain on the bag and used again ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I propose to offer an amendment with regard to the seal. In a transaction between the retailer and the purchaser, the wholesale merchant would not be liable for the receptacle which had a seal upon it which had been broken.


James Gilmour: Then whenever the seai is broken the second dealer is responsible ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Yes, the only one responsible. The intention of the Act is to render the seller liable. If the retail merchant sells seeds the purchaser can attack him, but he cannot attack the wholesale dealer from wrhom the retailer has bought goods unless there is a package on which there is a seal unbroken, then the retail dealer would be free from responsibility, and the wholesale dealer would be responsible, but only when he sold a package with the unbroken seal.
Mr. MeGOWAN. Will the wholesaler be allowed to get out of any responsibility in connection with this Bill ? Because most of the wholesale seedsmen have special arrangements to protect themselves from any liability ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I think this will neutralize any non-warranty clause by which they might try to relieve themselves from a guarantee of the purity or goodness of the seed. Under this section no such clause would be recognized. But I am not a lawyer, and must speak with diffidence. I suppose that under the common law a person can make an agreement with another party to relieve himself of responsibility. But this Bill I think will do away with any release to the wholesaler under what is called a non-warranty clause.
Mr. MeGOWAN. I am afraid it won't, unless you make special provision for it.


Jabel Robinson: In the section where I live, large quantities of American timothy seed come into the country to be sold. I would like to know whether the wholesaler or retailer would be responsible for the foul seed that might be found in it ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: The retailer who sells to the farmer will be liable unless he is selling a package sealed with an unbroken seal. If he sells a package with an unbroken seal, then the wholesaler whose name is on that package would: be liable: but if the seal is broken, or if he sells it out of the package in a small quantity, then the retailer would be liable.


William Ross: Does the minister consider the grades are sufficient, grade No. 1, No. 2, No. 3 ? I suppose the intention of 204
the Act is to make all seeds of uniform grades throughout the country.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: As nearly as possible.


William Ross: As it is now, every seed dealer in the country has a name on his package. Sometimes they designate their seeds as ' fancy,' ' choice.' Sometimes they will use the names of furbearing animals, as the ' martin,' ' ermine,' ' lynx,' ' fox.' the names of birds, the ' canary,' ' blackbird,' and so on. This is a radical departure from that particular phase of the subject, and I should like to know from the minister whether his Bill will interfere with that part of the trade ?


The . MINISTER OF  AGRICULTURE@: If the hon. gentleman reads the latter part of this section he will see that it contains this provision :
And the said mark may be accompanied by another designation or grade mark, provided that such designation or grade mark, is not inconsistent with, or marked more conspicuously than the one of the said four marks which is used on the said receptacle, package, sack or bag.
The section following defines what grade No. 1 must be, and what grade No. 2 must be, what grade No. 3 must be, and any merchant, if his grade No. 1 fulfils the conditions in section 5, can use any other mark that he chooses in addition to grade No. 1 to indicate the degree of the grade. He may say that it is superfine No. 1, or extra No. 1, or pure gold No. 1, or whatever he chooses, and he may have two or three grades of No. 1 upder the definition in section 5 of No. 1 according to his ideas of the quality of his No. 1 grade. The same would apply to No. 2 and No. 3.


John William Bell: The fact of the matter is that under the present practice of the seed trade, instead of there being four grades as the hon. minister points out, there will be sixteen or twenty grades of timothy seeds.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: 1 hardly think as many as that.


John William Bell: The practice of the trade is to sell fancy, choice, prime, strictly prime, and one or two lower grades. Now, every one of these would fulfil the requirements of this Bill. Fancy seed might be free from the particular weed seeds which are mentioned which must not occur in No. 1 seed and which is germinable to the extent of 90 degrees. Fancy seed, I might premise depends very largely on the appearance of the seed.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Not under this Bill.


John William Bell: Not under this Bill but in trade. The plumpness, the colour, the ab-



sence of shelled seed in timothy. These are the things that make the value in the estimation of the dealer. You may conceive-ably have fifteen or sixteen grades of timothy seed under the operation of this Bill and it would unquestionably lead to enormous confusion and difficulty. The merchant, might with jierfect honesty offer to a dealer in this country or abroad seed and it might yet be very inferior seed. It might only be a prime seed and only come within 50 per cent of a fancy seed and it might comply with all the conditions expressed in this Bill. So that, it is going to be perfectly impossible for merchants to handle their seeds and if it can be done it will require some long experience. However, I understand from the hon. minister that it is not likely that this Bill is to become law this year.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I would not like to say that.


John William Bell: It will be very important that we discuss it fully and give the trade time to express their objections to it.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: By all means.


John William Bell: I think so, because if the Bill is made to apply beyond the wholesale dealer it will throw the trade into an awful state of confusion for one year at least, and I think the hon. minister should be careful to give the trade a year to become familiar with its provisions. This Bill should certainly not come into operation without a year's notice. In reference to the matter of marking, every package containing seeds must be identified at every stage of its progress with the name of the maker and a dis-cription of the contents on the package. If the wholesaler sells a bag of timothy or clover to the retail merchant it will go to the retail merchant with the name of the wholesaler either marked upon the package or on a tag firmly attached to the package, then a description of the kind of seed and then the designation of the grade of seed. Between the wholesaler and the retailer there very often comes the jobber who buys from the wholesaler and sells to the retailer. When it comes into the hands of a jobber the liability on the part of the wholesaler ceases after seven days. This package would require to receive a new mark. It would then be marked with the name of the jobber. There would be a tag containing the name of the jobber, the name of the seed, the description of the seed and its grade. Then, it comes into the hands of the retailer and after seven days time the retailer would have no claim against the jobber. He is the man who is going to sell it to the public, and against whom the retail buyer would have no recourse after seven days. Then, it will require to be tagged again with the name of the retailer, the name of the seed and the grade. The con-Mr. BELL.
sequence is that the package, after a short time will be covered over with marks and it will be absolutely impossible to mark the packages. Therefore it is quite clear that the adoption of a tag instead of a mark is absolutely essential because the bag will be covered with all these marks. The result of this will be that in the next season a bag which has a second hand value of fifteen or sixteen cents would practically be useless because it would have all over it the marks of the previous season and it would not be properly descriptive of the merchants name or of the contents. Unless some way of avoiding this difficulty were arrived at, the dealer would have an enormous quantity of bags which would be useless. In view of that, and in view of the fact that properly to comply with the terms of the Bill, this package will be required to be marked at every stage of its progress from the wholesaler to the jobber, then to the retailer and to the final purchaser or the customer who is going to use the seed, it is absolutely necessary that some way of getting over the difficulty of this marking should be arrived at.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: My hon. friend (Mr. Bell) apparently did not hear the amendment which was proposed to obviate the difficulty in regard to that.


John William Bell: That is to use a tag ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Yes.


John William Bell: I did hear that.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: That disposes of the difficulty.


John William Bell: But did the hon. minister think of the difficulty this article would encounter in its progress in the trade ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: They would simply put a new tag on.


William Ross: In view of the fact that there are heavy penalties in this Bill for the improper sale of seeds, what provision have you made for the retailer ? As I understand" the transaction will go through something like this :	The wholesaler will
sell to the retailer a bag of turnip seed. It will probably have on it the tag of the wholesaler. The retailer puts that bag up for sale and be sells it in quantities ranging from half a pound to five or ten pounds. Does the tag remain on the bag until it is all sold and is it to be regarded as the guarantee of the wholesaler until it is all sold, or is the wholesaler relieved of his liability after seven days and does it then come upon the retailer ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Yes. The wholesaler will be relieved when the seal is once broken on the bag. As soon as the bag is opened, except for the taking of

a sample from it, the wholesaler would be relieved because he could not be held responsible after the bag was opened. The wholesaler does not know what the retailer may do with the seed after he once opens the package.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: The more I look on section 4 the more I think it is calculated to create a great disturbance as to the relations between farmers in the country. As I understand section 4 it would be impossible for farmers to deal amongst themselves in timothy and clover seeds. Some of these farmers are known in certain parts of the country as having excellent seed for sale and if they have to comply with all the requirements of section 4 it would be a great hardship for them. I do not think this Bill is workable, and if I am in order I would move that the committee rise.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Of course the hon. gentleman is quite in order in moving that the committee rise, but I must ask the committee to reject it. I am quite willing later on to ask the committee to rise, report progress, and ask to sit again, but as this motion of the hon. gentleman (Mr. Monk) would practically dispose of the Bill for this session I cannot agree to it. The hon. gentleman says the Bill is not workable. He was not present at the earlier part of the session when I stated that I was not absolutely committed to the details of the Bill, and that I was quite prepared to receive suggestions, and if the Bill could be made more workable by these suggestions to adopt them. I do venture to think that the Bill is workable even in the form in which it stands. The objection which the hon. gentleman takes to this particular section has been discussed for some time, and so far I have not been convinced of the difficulties that my hon. friend points out. It is true that if a farmer sells to another farmer timothy or clover or alsike which he does not choose to mark with his own name, the name of the seed, and the grade, he will be liable to the penalties under the Act. The intention of the Bill is that the people who sell seeds shall be required to guarantee the quality of the seeds they sell. People who sell seeds shall be required in some way to guarantee them. If the farmers themselves chose to engage in the business I must confess that they should be liable to the same conditions that people who sell seeds ordinarily are obliged to live up to. I am quite willing to acknowledge that there might be an occasional case of hardship, but the instances would be very few indeed. I said to the hon. gentleman from Bothwell that if he would propose an amendment to this clause which would not interfere with the efficacy of the Act I would be very glad to consider that amendment, but so far no such amendment has been proposed, and I confess that I have not been able to work out an amendment which would ac-204*
complish that without interfering with the efficacy of the measure.


Charles Marcil: Mr. Chairman, while approving of the principle of this Bill, and realizing the pressing need of legislation of this kind for the province of Quebec and the counties generally, with a view to the improvement of our seed grain ; and while I am aware that large quanties of grain containing seeds of noxious weeds are offered for sale daily ; I must disagree with the minister in regard to clauses 3 and 4 relative to trade between farmers. To my knowledge, in the county which I have the honour to represent, there is going on among the farmers an interchange of grains, from parish to parish, much to their benefit. But, under the provisions of the Bill now before the House, farmers taking part in this trade would be apt to pay pretty heavy penalties. To my mind, that would be unfair and would result in preventing farmers from carrying on a business profitable to themselves.
Then again, it does not seem fair to me to make the retailer liable to a penalty. The hon. minister is well aware that when the retailer receives the seeds from the wholesale dealer, he does not offer them for sale in the condition in which they reach him, that is to say, in closed bags or sacks. It will therefore be necessary for him to break the seals on these bags ; and it seems to me it would be most unfair, on account of this simple act, to hold the retailer responsible for the quality of the seeds contained in the bags. I am inclined to believe that the minister, on thinking the matter over, will realize that he is doing an injustice to the retailers, especially those dealing in timothy and clover seeds, which are generally sold in small lots.
It would be unfair to hold the retail dealer responsible for the quality of the seed sold by the wholesale dealer, merely for the fact of his breaking the seals of the bags which contain these seeds. The hon. minister, I am assured, realizes that is of absolute necessity to amend this Bill in such a way as to protect the farmer who is anxious to secure good seed, and also to protect the merchant. It is important at the same time that the retail merchant be protected against the wholesale dealer, by relieving the former of any responsibility as."to the quality of the seed contained in bags which he merely opened on receiving them from the wholesale dealer.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I am happy to find that the remarks I made concerning the Bill are endorsed by the hon. member for Bagot (Mr. Marcil). By reading over the other provisions of the Bill, one will readily perceive how arbitrary they are. Section 4, for instance, states the many conditions which the farmer has to comply with if he wishes to sell seeds. Those who are fami-

liar with the habits of the farmers of the province of Quebec, and of Ontario, as well, will see at once how objectionable these provisions are. Not only would this section be very unpopular, but it would not be workable. The farmer who wished to sell a small quantity of seed, red clover seed, for instance, would have to put it in a special package and to label it with his initials, the name of the kind of seed, and also the name of one of the four grades mentioned. As every one will see, these provisions could not be worked easily. My hon. friend from Bagot and the minister himself who are acquainted with the habits of our country people know perfectly well that this law could not be worked. That is why I moved a few moments ago that the committee rise, to show our disapproval of the Bill, although, I admit, that disapproval should have been expressed at the time of the second reading. But, as I had to be away at the time, I take this opportunity of presenting the motion.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: In reply to the hon. gentleman who represents Bagot, I would say that the country merchant who retails seeds which he has bought from a wholesale dealer can protect himself under the provisions of this Bill by taking a sample of the seeds when he buys them, and if that sample is up to the quality marked on the package, he is then quite safe in selling them in the same way. If he finds that it is not up to the quality which the wholesale merchant has marked upon the package, he can have recourse against the wholesale merchant. Of course, if he neglects to take such a sample and goes on and sells the seeds by retail, after he has broken the seal on the package, he cannot come back on the wholesaler ; and it would be hardly fair that he should, because the seal having been broken, the wholesale dealer would, not know whether the seed the retailer sold was that which he sold to the retailer or not. In that way the country storekeeper is quite able to protect himself from selling anything that is not what he represents it to be. In regard to the other matter, as I said to the hon. member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk). I am quite open to suggestions with regard to this Bill, and I am quite willing to consider the question as to how the farmers dealing with one another in the way he and other members have described can be protected from unfair and improper incidence of the provisions of this Bill. But that is quite a different thing from the committee rising and rejecting the whole Bill. As I have said with regard to other sections, I am willing to let this section stand for further consideration, with a view of seeing how the farmers can be protected in the ordinary transactions between themselves. But I must ask the committee to reject the motion made by the hon. member for Jacques Cartier, and to go on and


Frederick Debartzch Monk: consider the other sections of the Bill with the same open mind with which we have discussed the Bill thus far.
Mr. MAItCIL (Bagot.) (Translation). Before replying to the hon. minister, I wish to state to the hon. member for Jacques Cartier that I am not ready under the circumstances to support the motion he has just made, seeing that the hon. minister proposes to let section 4 stand for the present and to amend it in accordance with the views of the committee.
Now, to meet the objection made by the hon. minister, in reference to retail dealers, I wish to draw his attention to the fact that he possibly is not in as good a position as the merchants themselves to know exactly what is going on. It is likely enough to happen that the wholesaler, knowing that the retailer, by the mere fact of his breaking the seals, becomes responsible for the quality of the seeds, will put at the upper end of the bags, first quality grain, which will be classed No. 1, as required by law, while the middle and bottom layers will consist of seeds of third and fourth quality. Such frauds are frequent enough in the wholesale trade, and I may inform the minister that, on various occasions, country retailers have received bags of seed grain the upper layers of which were of first quality, while the lower layers were third quality.
If the practice is such to-day, it will continue in the future in spite of this law, and it would be unfair to hold the retailer responsible for the quality of the grain contained in the bags of which he broke the seals, considering that he is not in a position to find out whether that seed is oils not first quality. I trust the hon. Minister of Agriculture will think the matter over, and reach the conclusion that his Bill should be amended so as to protect the wholesale dealer and the country retailer.


James Gilmour: It seems to me that the retail dealer, in order to free himself from the responsibility of selling against the law, must take the sample in the presence of the wholesale merchant who has sold it to him. If he does not do that, he must be held responsible for it. That would appear to me from clause 11.


The MINISTER OP AGRICULTURE.: I intend to propose an amendment coming after section 8 to the effect that any person who sells seeds by wholesale shall not be liable for the seeds sold after the seal has been broken, unless when the seal has been broken a sample for an official test has been taken in the presence of two witnesses. I intend to propose that amendment to protect the wholesale dealer and to give the retail dealer a chance to protect himself. In reply to the hon. member for Bagot, I may say that it is well known that there is a little

instrument, something like a pencil, which can be forced into a package of seeds, by which samples can be taken, not only from the top, but all through the bag. That little machine costs about twenty-five cents, and I do not think any country merchant will allow himself to be laid open to a charge, because he did not spend twenty-five cents to take the trouble to protect himself in that way. I appreciate, however, the necessity of protecting the retail dealers in the country just as much as the wholesale dealers who are selling to them. The provisions of the Bill, I hope, and the amendment which I am going to suggest, will cover these points, and I want to reiterate that I am only too glad to receive suggestions which remove the difficulties which necessarily gather around legislation of this kind. We have been fortunate enough on various occasions to thresh out various Bills to make them workable, and I have confidence that the intelligence and inventiveness of this committee will succeed in making this Bill as workable as we have made other Bills.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: It is, I admit, late to move against the principle of the Bill, but still it is in accordance with the rules of the House to move now that the committee rise ; and as I and a great many other members of this House, who understand the wants of the rural population of the province of Quebec, disapprove of this legislation at the present time, although it may be useful at a later date, I wish to move-and I do it without any disrespect to the hon. minister-that the committee rise.


William Ross: Considering that nearly every member who has spoken on the Bill has conceded that there is a necessity for some law governing the seed trade of this country, I think the Bill should be proceeded with. When we consider that in the province of Ontario alone the hay and clover prop, exclusive of seed, is worth 530,000,000, we can see how important this Bill is. Under the circumstances, I think the best thing we can do is to go over the Bill and see just how far we agree with it, and how far we cannot agree. I confess that there are some things in the Bill which I consider might be improved ; but I. for one, feel that we should go on and see what can be done in the matter.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I appeal to my hon. friends who know the wants of the province of Quebec in regard to legislation of this kind. This legislation, however we might remodel it, would not be acceptable to the population there. I appeal to these hon. gentlemen to give their opinion on the Bill, which I do not think is suitable either to the province of Quebec or to the province of Ontairio. I insist on my motion.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: My hon. friend takes the responsibility of
*challenging a Bill of this kind, which he does in the interest of the farmers of Quebec, and intimates thereby that the farmers of that province object to a. Bill which is for the purpose of preventing their being sold bad seeds. The hon. gentleman is welcome to take that responsibility, and to go before the farmers of the province of Quebec with that responsibility on his shoulders. I challenge him to vote in this House in that pense. If	the	hon.	gentleman	and his
friends choose to vote for the destruction of this Bill at this time, I warn him that the farmers of the province of Quebec will hold him responsible when he goes before them.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: My hon. friend does not deceive anybody	with	this talk.	I haveseen by the gestures of his friends behind him that they have been appealing to him to give up this Bill. I have seen by the gestures of	the	hon.	gentleman's friendsbehind him	that	they	have been	pressing
him to abandon his Bill. Among those I have noticed^ Mr. Speaker, himself, the hon. member for Laprairie (Mr. Monet) the hon. member for Yerchiires (Mr. Geoffrion) and the hon. member for Charlevoix (Mr. Angers). The opinion so clearly expressed by the hon. member for Bagot (Mr. Marcil) coupled with the attitude of these hon. gentlemen, is proof positive that the hon. minister is endeavouring, in a very clumsy way, to get rid of his Bill. Let him stand up like a man and defend his Bill or keep his peace, instead of trying to shelve on me the responsibility of the abandonment of that Bill, which his hon. friends behind him have been urging him the whole evening to give up.


Mr. D. MONET (Laprairie and Napierville.) (Translation).: Mr. Chairman, there is a clear contradiction in the remarks made by the hon. member for Jacques Cartier. He apparently finds fault with the minister for not pressing his Bill through committee this evening. That is exactly what the minister wishes to do, while the hon. member is moving for the committee to rise and throw out the Bill entirely.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Is my hon. friend in favour of this Bill ?


Dominique Monet: Certainly. I have just risen to protest against the suggestion made bj; the hon. member that I was one of those who seemed to oppose the Bill. In the provinec of Quebec, as well as in all the other provinces which I had the pleasure to visit, weeds are present, and I am of opinion that such a law is needed to protect the farmers, especially in the newly settled districts where these noxious weeds have not yet taken a foothold. It is highly important that they should be kept out.
air. aiONK (Translation). Does my hon>
friend approve of section 4 of this Bill ?


Dominique Monet: 1 think there are sections which are too strict and which should be amended. But in view of the minister's willingness to let clauses 3 and 4 stand, for the purpose of considering various amendments suggested by members from the province of Quebec who spoke this evening, I think we should be satisfied.
We shall examine the provisions of the Bill and retain whatever is good in them, but the proposal of the hon. member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) is a greater evil, as it rejects the Bill as a whole. Hon. members on the other side who have spoken have approved of the principle of the Bill. Now, what remains to be done is to look into the details and make the necessary changes. But my hon. friend from Jacques Cartier, while in favour of the Bill, would do away with it by having the committee rise without reporting progress.
The object of the Bill is good and approved by all: What remains to be done is to work out the details with a sincere determination to adopt the best possible means for the eradication of weed seeds from our fields. In the field of politics noxious weeds have to be endured ; but such is not the case with the weeds on the farms.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: My hon. friend from La-prairie says that hon. members on this side are in favour of the principle of the Bill. I was not present in the early part of the discussion, as I was on the Redistribution Committee, but if what my hon. friend says be the case, I am prepared to withdraw my motion. I would like, however, to know from my hon. friend the Minister of Agriculture if he intends to carry the Bill through this session and to give us the amendments to those sections to which we have objected. Surely he is not afraid to tell us whether he intends to carry this Bill through with the changes for which we have been contending.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I do not know how often my hon. friend wishes me to express my intentions. I have already told the committee several times that, in my opinion, the time had arrived for the passage of a Bill of this kind, but that I was quite ready to discuss any amendments which might be suggested to improve the measure. I have said that I should be most happy to receive from the committee any suggestions towards making the Bill as perfect as possible.


Mr.   CHAIRMAN@Mr. Fraser: Does the hon. gentleman from Jacques Cartier wish to withdraw his motion ?


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Does the hon. minister refuse to give me the information which I asked in a most respectful manner as to whether he intends this Bill to become law or not ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: It does not lie with me to make it law. I am Mr. MONK.
in the hands of the committee and propose to be guided by the evident desire of the House. If the Bill can be made such as will meet the approval of the House, it will no doubt become law; but if it cannot be put into such a shape as to commend itself to the approval of the House, I shall not attempt to force it through the House.


James Gilmour: I think what the hon. member for Jacques Cartier desired to know was whether the Bill shall become law this year. I understood the hon. minister to say that he does not intend to make it become law until July of next year.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: When we were discussing section 2, my hon. friend from Jacques Cartier was not present, but I then stated that I thought the date fixed in the Bill for bringing it into operation was too early, and that I would let that clause stand so that we might change the date later on.


Mr.   CHAIRMAN@Mr. Fraser: Does the hon. member for Jacques Cartier wish to withdraw his motion ?


Frederick Debartzch Monk: In view of the declaration of the hon. minister that he intends completely changing his Bill, I beg to withdraw my motion.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I
cannot accept a withdrawal on such terms. I have not said that I propose to change the entire character of the Bill.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: If the hon. minister states that he has no intention of changing his Bill, I shall persist in my motion.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Neither have I made any such statement as that. Surely my hon. friend does not wish me to state over again what I have already declared so often. Let him either put his motion or withdraw it.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I persist in my motion.


John William Bell: There is evidently some confusion or misunderstanding. No doubt the general opinion of the committee is that this Bill is in the right direction. If we could secure a supply of pure seeds, which has a large percentage of germination, no doubt that would be most desirable, but the difficulty is in getting a workable measure. I have urged on the hon. minister to proceed slowly so as to avoid throwing a very important trade into a state of confusion.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: But the hon. gentleman's colleague does not want me to proceed at all.


John William Bell: I do not think that that is the intention of my hon. friend from Jacques Cartier. I rather understood that the hon. minister himself once or twice suggested asking the committee to rise and he has allowed one or two clauses to stand over, so that we might not make too much pro-

gress. That is in agreement with the sense of the House, which believes the result aimed at very desirable but very difficult of accomplishing. The more we look into the matter, the more we find that a great deal of care and elaboration will be necessary before the measure can be put into such a shape that it will be a benefit to the country. It is possible to pass the measure in such a shape that it will prove a dead letter. It would be looked upon as a very harsh thing if large penalties were enforced against persons who, to a certain extent, were innocent and were proceeding to carry on this business as It has been carried on for many years past. The difficulty of bringing home an offence to any particular person, I am sure the hon. minister has already realized, would be enormous. At the same time, we cannot make any great mistake in going on to consider! the clause further. I do not anticipate that the minister will succeed in putting the Bill into such a shape as he will feel like making it an operative law in the course of the coming year. He could hardly do that at this late stage of the session. The House generally is disposed to take an interest in a Bill. Many members have taken part in the discussion and everybody has shown a desire to assist the minister and facilitate the progress of the Bill. Special attention has been paid to it by hon. members from the province of Quebec. One reason, no doubt, is that it will affect many people in that province. Timothy seed, of the best quality, we know is produced in Quebec, and many thousand bushels are marketed in Montreal every year. For my own part if the hon. minister does not desire to withdraw his Bill, if he will hold this section for further amendment, we might go through other sections without any great loss.


Mr. BOSS (Ontario).: - I have already said I am opposed to the motion of the hon. member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk), and I have already said that I did not think it would be wise to bring this Bill into force this year. As I have said the time for the seed trade is practically upon us and the conditions imposed by this Bill will, I do not say revolutionize, but change in some respects this important trade. Therefore, I think it would be wise to delay. If the minister needs a precedent, I would refer him to the case of the Fruit Marks Act which was brought in one session and discussed, and it was then decided that some such law was needed. The Bill was left over until the folllowing session. That law has been beneficial and the treatment of il might be taken as a precedent in this case.


James Clancy: I confess I am a little puzzled by the action of the Minister of Agriculture. The hon. member for Jacques Cartier asked what seems to me a very fair question-whether the minister would insist that the Bill should go through in its present shape. The hon. minister had declared that
he had an open mind on the question, he invited fair discussion and said he was not averse to any reasonable amendments, but was entirely in the hands of the committee. My hon. friend from Jacques Cartier without uttering another sentence in view of the statements of the hon. minister, withdrew his amendment. To the surprise of everybody, the minister arose in something like a passion and declared that he would not allow the amendment to be withdrawn except on conditions laid down by himself. That seems a piece of pettishness on the part of the minister. I am in favour of any measure that will make for better conditions with regard to the subject dealt with by this Bill. But I would infinitely rather see the Bill stand over than have it pass in its present shape-and that is what the hon. minister means to insist upon, as is evident by his language in refusing to allow the hon. member for Jacques Cartier to withdraw his amendment. I will therefore vote for the amendment.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Clancy) has so completely misrepresented the position, unintentionally-


James Clancy: Order.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I am in order. He has so completely misrepresented what has occurred that I have to put him right:	The hon. member for
Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) came late into the discussion and not knowing what had been said began to criticise the Bill.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I did not criticise the Bill,
I criticised section 4.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Bill. That is the whole affair. If the hon. gentleman (Mr. Monk) will say frankly that he will withdraw his motion because it is an inexpedient motion, I am willing to agree to its withdrawal. But if lie is going to try to release himself from the tight place in which he finds himself by putting words in my mouth that I never uttered. I will not allow him to withdraw his motion on those conditions.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The hon. minister says that there has been practically no disagreement with the Bill. Why, several members expressed themselves as plainly as they could to the affect that the Bill would be unworkable. I said that for one, and I say it again. I would rather see the Bill defeated than passed in its present form. While I think it would be better for the farmers to have pure seed, I say that they cannot work under this Bill and carry on their operations as they carry them on today. Either the Bill must be a dead letter or the farmers will be punished for offences which they have no desire to commit. The hon. minister will not admit that he is going to change the Bill in any important particular


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I did not say that.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: He would not say that he would mend it seriously. The hon. member for Jacques Cartier is not-out of place in making the motion he has made, and I shall support him.
Amendment (Mr. Monk), negatived.
On section 5,


James Clancy: This is subject to the same difficulties pointed out with regard to section 4, as it refers to these small seeds, and I take it that it is covered also by section 6, which covers all classes of cereals and small seeds. But the hon. gentleman will see that there is no escape so far as these small seeds are concerned under section 6, because in no case are they sold for food.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Section 5 simply defined the different grades. The definition of grades is necessary.


James Gilmour: Why do you use the word * screening ' instead of the worjl ' rejected,' to designate inferior seeds ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I was going to ask that the word ' rejected ' be substituted for the word ' screenings,' in accordance with the suggestions of the seed dealers, who say that the word ' screenings ' is not known to the trade, while the word 'rejected' is. 1 do not think we could well refuse to allow these seeds to be sold. I am told by the trade that there is a large sale outside of Canada for these ' screenings.'


Sydney Arthur Fisher: 


James Clancy: Has the hon. gentleman made some inquiry as to the uses to which these screenings are put when they are exported ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I am informed that some poor alsike clover seed is used for dyeing purposes. I think most of these seeds are sent to the western states and used on pasture land.


William Ross: I think the word 1 rejected ' will more properly meet the minister's grade because, as we understand ' screenings ' in the trade, 70 per cent of them would not germinate, and they would more properly be termed ' rejected.'


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: It is a grade below No. 3.


William Ross: Were these tests the minister referred to carried on over a series of years ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Over two years.


William Ross: I noticed in the test for timothy that one sample in five days had seven per cent of germination, and in fourteen days the same sample had twenty-two per cent of germination. That was practically no good. Some of them were low, but most of them were high. I would ask the minister if the season in which this seed was taken was a good season for timothy seed, and was it grown in Canada or imported from the United States ? A large proportion of the timothy seed sold in Canada comes from the United States, especially that sold in Ontario, when we have a short crop. It might be that the germination for timothy seed is a little high. I see by the table he has prepared here that it runs largely from 70 per cent to 90 per cent. There would be a variation in the seasons. Timothy might be good one season and poor in another.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: The tests of which I have spoken were taken in the spring of 1903, and the spring of 1902, they were tlie seeds grown the year before. They were taken both from imported and Canadian grown seed, I could not tell how- many of each, but probably more Canadian grown seed than imported. But we cannot always tell where the seeds come from. While it may be a "bad year for timothy seed in one district, it may be a good year in another district.


William Ross: It is more than likely that the department germinated timothy seed which was unhulled and which was hulled. If it is timothy seed that had the rough outside coat on, then it is known as unhulled seed. Perhaps he could tell me whether there was any difference in the germinating power between non-hulled and bullied timothy seed.


Tlie MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Practically no great difference. As long as the seed was fresh it would germinate whether it was hulled or non-hulled.


Dominique Monet: Has the hon. gentleman an idea as to the number of officers it will be necessary to appoint in order to enforce this clause 5 ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Any person may take action under the Act.


Dominique Monet: Where will the officers charged with the enforcement of this Act be located ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: We have no intention to appoint inspectors throughout the country. We will have only one or two officers in the laboratory here to examine the samples. Section 9 is for the purpose of authorizing them to take samples and if necessary that persons may be sent from the department at any time to enforce the Act but it is not the intention to appoint inspectors all over the country for the enforcement of the Act. The proposal is to provide machinery under the Act and let anybody take action for enforcing the penalties. In that connection the proposal is that the officers of the department shall be available for testing any samples of seed sent to them and their test will be regarded as prima facie evidence against the persons selling the seed. That is partly in the Act and partly in the regulations, which, under section IS, the Governor in Council is empowered to issue for the enforcement of the Act. I beg to move :
That the word * rejected ' be inserted instead of the word ' screenings ' in subsection 2 of section 5.
Section, as amended, agreed to.
On section 6,
. The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE. Before adopting section 0, I wish to add a subclause. The section provides that :
The provisions contained in this Act shall not apply to
Oa) any person growing or selling seeds for the purpose of seed ; or' to
(b) any person selling seeds direct to merchants to be cleaned and graded before being offered for sale for the purpose of seeding.
It lias been pointed out to me by persons engaged in the trade that they would buy seed and hold it in their warehouses for months before they would be able to clean it and that under these circumstances if seed was not held for the purpose of sale the person holding the seed should not be liable to the penalties of the Act.


James Clancy: How is the farmer, or the person selling the seed, to know whether it is to be recleaned and to be sold for seeding purposes ? Paragraph (b) may be all
right but it seems to me to be rather vague.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: The intention is that where a seed merchant buys seed from a farmer, if the seed has not been cleaned by the farmer and it is intended to be cleaned by the seed merchant, the farmer shall not be liable to the penalties of this Act. He could sell that seed in bulk without marking his name or putting the grade upon it, and if it were not pure he would not be liable to the penalties of this Act.


James Clancy: That destroys the whole effect of the section, because, if he were left perfectly free to sell it, all he would have to do would be to sell the seed and the person to whom he sold must take the responsibility of all the penalties that would follow. The person who sells does not know what disposition is to be made of it, and therefore he should not be asked to contemplate what disposition the man to whom he is selling it, is going to make of it. A difficulty is involved there and I think the person selling the seed under such conditions should be free and that the man who afterwards cleans and grades it and disposes of it for seed should be made to bear the penalties that would follow from an infraction of the law.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I think you might insert after the word ' merchants ' the words ' who are in the trade' and then hold the merchant responsible for it afterwards. The farmer could not be held responsible any longer.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: It is not intended that he should be. The intent certainly is that after the farmer sells the seed to the merchant he shall not be liable to the penalties of the Act.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: After he has sold it for the purpose of being cleaned and graded he cannot know whether it is to be cleaned and graded or not. After he sells it his interest ceases.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: If we were to sell it to a person who was going to sell it again in the condition it was in when he sold it he should not be re-' lieved.


James Clancy: How would he know ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I see what the hon. gentleman means.


William Ross: Section (b) would work against the trade. I did not recognize it until now. The hon. minister explained that the farmer might sell his seed to the merchant to be cleaned and graded, but how is he going to provide for this case ? Some of the farmers clean the seeds, and I know from experience, that it is very unsatisfactory to buy uncleaned seeds from the

farmers. A farmer might not clean the seed as it would be required for sale, but be would take the dirt and chaff out, and it would then be a presentable grade. Suppose the farmer sells that seed to the merchant and the merchant does not intend to offer it for sale at his store, but intends to sell it to the wholesaler who has a cleaning apparatus and who will resell it, I think it should be made clear that they could handle that seed from the farmer to the merchant and the merchant to the wholesaler, who recleans. If the word ' or ' was added in the 37th line it might meet that case. Perhaps three-fourths of the seed that is offered to the merchant is what we would call cleaned seed, but it might not come up to the requirements of this law.


James Clancy: He incurs no penalty in buying, but only when he goes to sell.


William Ross: In nine cases out of ten he passes the seed through a machine, and then it all comes out one grade after going through a process of mixing.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: If there is any responsibility on the farmer who sells to a merchant, I would not care to have the section passed in that form. I can understand that a case of the kind mentioned by the hon. member for Ontario may arise where the retail merchant in the country was simply a go-between from the farmer to the wholesale seedman, and he perhaps ought not be subject to a penalty.


William Ross: I agree with the amendment offered by the Minister of Agriculture. I think it is a wise amendment. The alsike season runs from August to November, and during the busy season it is an utter impossibility to prepare this seed for market and grade it properly.


John William Bell: It often occurs that a merchant may buy a carload of seed and that he will frequently turn that carload over without it being in his possession a day. It would be quite impossible for him to test the germinating quality of that seed.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I presume the merchant would buy a sample and have it tested.


John William Bell: It is absolutely impossible to test the sample in the busy part of the season.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: If the carload of seed was not opened, the person who sold It to the merchant would would be liable.


John William Bell: Suppose the seller lived in the United States.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: If the transaction occurred in Canada he would be liable


John William Bell: But many of these carloads of seed are ordered by wire.


William Ross: 


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I think the importer, when he imports from outside of the country, would have to be liable for the seed.


John William Bell: It might happen that the importer would have no possibility of ascertaining the germinating quality of the seed.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: If we allow the importing to go on without placing any liability on the importer, it would defeat the whole object of the Bill. I have it from several men of experience that a good seedsman can tell by the eye the germinating qualities of some seeds about as well as if he had made a test. There are some seeds that you cannot tell by looking at them, but there are a great many that you can tell ; and they would know by the sample where they bought their seed. They would also very largely trust to the reputation of the people from whom they bought. If they once caught any person in that way, they would not buy from him again, and they would make it so that he could not again sell seeds in this country. If we were to receive imported seeds in the way suggested, I do not think to jail, but that is all.


William Ross: How is the hon. minister going to deal with the American or English seedsmen who send seeds into this country by mail ? Sometimes they have an agent going through the country, taking orders, and the goods are delivered afterwards. The agent may not be a responsible person from whom any one could recover. Is there anything in this Bill taking care of that part of the business ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: The condition of affairs which the hon. gentleman has pointed out is somewhat familiar to me. I think the seeds sold by mail are chiefly garden and vegetable seeds; I do not think any great quantity of agricultural seeds are sold in that way. There are certain seed houses in the United States which send out considerable quantities of package seeds. It has been suggested that they should be excluded from the operation of this Act, and perhaps the fact stated by the hon. gentleman is one reason why they should be excluded. We might, however, meet that difficulty in one of two ways. The pedlar of the seeds in this country might be required to make a domicile here and be responsible for all the importations of the seeds he sold. I grant that sometimes the pedlar would not be a responsible person, and that it would be hard to get anything out of him. But sometimes they are responsible; very often they are farmers. Another way in which we might deal with the matter, if it is found to be a sufficiently prevalent practice to justify it, would be to require that seeds sold in that way should be entered at some particular port, where samples would be taken,

and where they would be liable to penalty or confiscation if not up to their grade. I confess that that is one of those difficulties which I have not quite solved in dealing with this measure.
Section allowed to stand.
On section 7,


Mr. MORIN.: I think the words ' hard labour ' should be struck out of this section. Suppose a man should buy ten pounds ot seeds or sell ten pounds of seeds he would be sent to jail at hard labour. I would suggest that the penalty be according to the amount of seeds sold. If a man sold a thousand pounds, it might be right enough for him to pay the penalty of $10; but if he sold ten pounds, that penalty would be severe. In our district we have no such place as hard labour; we can send a man to jail, but that is all.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: This clause is taken, I think verbatim, from the General Inspection Act, and the penalties are the same as they are there. I suppose we might strike out the words ' hard labour ' if that penalty is thought to be too hard. But that portion of the clause, and also the amount of the fine running from $100 down to $10, is supposed to be left to the discretion of the magistrate who imposes the sentence.


John William Bell: It seems to me that It is rather an excessive penalty to make the minimum fine for each offence $10. ' If a person sold half a dozen packages of vegetable seeds, he would be liable to pay a fine of $10 for each package sold. That would impose an enormously heavy penalty for what would be a trifling injury.


Dominique Monet: I believe that fraud is the same thing, whether the amount of seed sold be large or small. 1 believe that the clahse as it reads is all right, except perhaps that it is a little too harsh for the first offence. This is a new Act, and I suppose that everybody who will come under its provisions will be guilty for the first time. Suppose a person should be prosecuted under this Act. Suppose he should be brought to a justice of the peace, who would be very severe upon him and sentence him for the whole amount of the penalty, $100. The man is unable to pay that. So he will have to be condemned to jail, with or without hard labour. If this was his first offence, I think that sentence would be found to be Very hard upon him. I would suggest that for the first offence, the accused should be dealt with very leniently, as this will be a new law and should not be too rigorously administered in the beginning. Let the justice of the peace be as severe as possible in the case of second or third offences, but not in the case of a first offence.


Jean-Baptiste Morin: The hon. the minister has said that we would leave the penalty to
the discretion of the justice of the peace. I am a justice of the peace myself and I would advise the hon. minister not to trust them too much because some of them will be inclined to give too hard a dose. Justices of the peace are sometimes very crusty and will go the full length the law allows, when there is no necessity for it. Better not leave the matter entirely in their hands.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Does my hon. friend suggest that we should make a fixed penalty for each offence and leave no discretion to the magistrate ?


Jean-Baptiste Morin: I would do that if I were in the hon. minister's place.


Dominique Monet: I do not think it would be right to impose a fixed penalty, because there might be differences in the guilt of the accused. At the same time the margin is rather large-from $10 to $100. Why not say from $10 to $25 or from $10 to $50.


Jean-Baptiste Morin: Or reduce it to $5.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I will let that section stand.
Section allowed to stand.
The person on whose behalf any seed is sold, offered, exposed or had in possession for sale, contrary to the provisions of the foregoing sections of this Act, shall be prima facie liable for the violation of this Act.


Robert Laird Borden: In what case shall he not be liable ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: If he proves that it was sold by an agent not authorized or who tampered with it, without his knowledge or order, he would escape liability. But if his clerk or storeman sold it, he would be liable prima facie, and he would have to prove that his employees had acted contrary to his orders or had intentionally deceived him.


Robert Laird Borden: If that be the intention, far better to say so.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: It does say so practically.


Robert Laird Borden: I should not think so. You have statutes in which a man is held liable even without any intention to violate the law and others in which the intention is necessary. I suppose section 8 is in the latter category.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: It is reproduced from the General Inspection Act.


Robert Laird Borden: I would be inclined to make the same criticism on that. It is very easy to say ' shall be liable for a violation of this Act unless he shall prove that the person acting on his behalf did so against his express orders or direction.'


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I think the section practically throws the

onus of proof on tlie person in charge of the business, whose subordinate may have sold the goods. The onus of proof is thrown on the principal to show that he was not personally responsible or guilty. This is the form adopted in several other Acts.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
The MINISTER OP AGRICULTURE.: I wish to move that the following subsection be added :-
Any person who sells seed by wholesale in sealed packages, sacks or bags, to a retail vendor, shall not be liable for such seeds after the seal has been broken, unless such seal has been broken and a sample for official test is taken and inclosed in the sealed package in the presence of two iron-interested witnesses.
That is for the purpose of protecting the *wholesale dealer.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to, and section as amended, agreed to.
On section 9,
Jean-Baptiste Morin: I would like to ask the hon. minister what a man has to do when the seeds are on railway premises ? Suppose the seeds are in a locked car, will the officer have a right to break the lock open ?


The MINISTER OP AGRICULTURE.: He would have to appeal to the officer of the railway company, I imagine, to open the car. and if the officer refused, he would have authority under this to break open the car.


William Ross: I suppose the officer of the department would carry his authority with him and be able to show it to anybody who required it ?


David Henderson: Who is going to s?e to the enforcement of this law ? Is the government going to appoint officers all over the country ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: There is no such intention.


David Henderson: It says ' Any person charged with the enforcement of this Act.' There must be some person charged. Who will it be ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE:: The present intention is that any officer of the department as at present constituted who may wish to take samples, or who may have reason to suspect that adulterated or impure seeds are being sold, will have authority to take samples.


David Henderson: Does the hon. minister mean the department here in Ottawa ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Yes.


David Henderson: 
David Henderson: That is a sample of the whole Bill-unworkable.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Not at all.
On section 10-samples to be sent to official seed analyst. [DOT]


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Is it proposed to appoint a special seed analyst ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I have already an officer in the seed laboratory. This is a part of the work.


David Henderson: If we are going to have the thorough investigation we expect, thousands and tens of thousands of samples will be coming from all over the country. The analyst, in that case, is not going to be able to do all the work.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: If samples come in in great numbers, we must increase the staff of the laboratory. But that will show how necessary and justifiable is the law.


Dominique Monet: Would it not be better to say plainly in the law to what inspector the seed shall be sent ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: They will be sent to the seed analyst.


Dominique Monet: Is he appointed ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: He is an officer of my department who is doing the work. But he would have to be appointed seed analyst by Order in Council. It says : ' Such person as the Governor in Council appoints as an official seed analyst.'
On section 11-sample to be taken in presence of sellers or two witnesses, certificate to accompany sample.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: How will these samples be sent in, by post ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Yes.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Free ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Yes. The official seed analyst will be an officer of the department, and these would come to the department free under the Postal Act.
On section 12-samples to be sent within seven days.
Mr. SPttOULE. Suppose samples are not sent within the proper time, would that relieve the person selling the seed from any liability under the Act or prosecution for damages ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I do not think it would free him from an action for damages, but it would free him

from penalties under this Act. X think there is no doubt about that.


Peter Macdonald: Mr. Fisher proposes to amend this section by adding to it the words ' in default whereof no prosecution shall lie with respect to such deeds.'


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: That might cover the point raised by the hon. member for East Grey (Mr. Sproule). I think it would be better to leave that out.
On section 14-certificates of analysis as evidence,


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Ought the minister not make some specific provisions for sealing up and sending in the seed ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I propose to submit regulations and rules for the taking of these samples, and the provisions the hon. gentleman (Mr. Sproule) refers to will be included in these. Section 18 allows for that.
On section 15,
Any pecuniary penalty imposed under this Act shall, on recovery be payable one-half to the informant or complainant, and the other half to His Majesty.


William Ross: 1 think that is objectionable-that a man should Be able to come into your house or store and be able to prosecute, half the fine going to him. I think the fine should all go to the Crown under the circumstances of this case. I think under all circumstances the fine should go to the Crown.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I may say that the seed merchants who have approached me on this Bill, have objected to this clause, and I am quite willing to strike it out.
On section 17,


James Clancy: Do I understand that there can be no appeal to the county judge in the province of Ontario ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I am not familiar with the nomenclature of the different courts of the province of Ontario. This clause as well as the other clauses, in regard to legal proceedings, have been taken from the General Inspection Act, which I presume provided for the courts in the different provinces.


Mr. BARKER.: In Ontario the appeals from magistrates are always to the county court judges.


Dominique Monet: In the province of Quebec we have both a superior and a circuit court, so if you do not mention the court to which appeal is to be taken, we shall not know where to go. I think we should determine that in Quebec the appeal should be brought before the circuit court, because if brought before a superior court, the amount of costs
might be very large and the sum involved very small.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: If the committee would allow, I would ask that that clause be allowed to stand for the opinion of the Minister of Justice.
Progress reported.



ADJOURNMENT-RESIGNATION OF HON. MR. BLAIR-BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

[Stage Direction]
The MINISTER OF FINANCE (Hon. W. S. Fielding) moved the adjournment of the House.
Robert Laird Borden: Before the House adjourns I would like to know what business we may expect for tomorrow. I would also like to know from the Minister of Finance whether he has any information to give to the House with respect to an intimation which is very current that the Minister of Railways (Hon. A. G. Blair) has tendered his resignation. It is openly stated, as my hon. friend is no doubt aware, throughout the corridors of the House, that such an event has taken place. If it is true that he has tendered his resignation, perhaps the hon. gentleman will be good enough to give the House any information he has.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: As to the latter part of my hon. friend's question, I have not had the pleasure of seeing either the Prime Minister or the Minister of Railways this evening, and I am afraid I am not in a position to give him any information as to the question he has asked. As to the business to be taken up to-morrow, we may be able to take one Or two Bills on the Order Paper at an early stage, and then we will ask the House to go into Committee of Supply, resuming consideration of the estimates of the Department of the Interior.


Robert Laird Borden: I understand there are certain resolutions upon the Order Paper with regard to the bounties on iron and steel and the bounties on lead.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Neither of them will be taken up to-morrow.


Robert Laird Borden: Perhaps before to-morrow evening my hon. friend may be able to get into communication with the Prime Minister or the Minister of Railways I do not think there will be any great difficulty on the subject. I appreciate the fact that perhaps he has not been very anxious to meet them this evening, and under the circumstances I accept his explanation as the best he could offer.


Mr. WILSON.: Before the House adjourns. I wish to give notice that on motion to go into supply to-morrow I will bring up the question of immigration, which I intend to discuss.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Do I understand my hon. friend to give notice of a motion, or merely of a discussion ?


Uriah Wilson: A discussion, which maybe followed by a motion.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House adjourned at 12.50 a.m., Tuesday.
[Stage Direction]
Tuesday, July 14, 1903.