1903-06-25

Mr. MONK asked :: 1.	What was the report of the investigation held hy the Deputy Minister of Trade and Commerce into the weighing of butter and cheese ?
2.	Who made the complajnt, or charge, in respect to said weighing of butter and cheese ?
3.	Did the investigation made by the royal commissioner show that the complaint, or charges, were well founded ?
4.	What was the cost of said investigation ?
5.	Will the report, if there is a written report. be communicated to the House, and when?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE (Hon. Sydney Fisher).: The Deputy Minister of Trade and Commerce has not made out his report as commissioner to inquire into certain complaints as to the weights of butter and cheese. The complaints were made to the Department of Agriculture by a very large number of salesmen and others interested in the dairy trade. The investigation, not being reported on, it is premature to give an opinion as to the justice of the complaints. The cost so far is $428.95. The report will be laid on the Table of the House.



PURCHASES OF AMERICAN CATTLE BY BRITISH GOVERNMENT.

Mr. R. L. BORDEN (Halifax).: Before the Orders of the Day are called, I would ask whether the attention of the govern-

ment lias been directed to the following information published in this morning's Montreal * Gazette ' :
The work of stocking Boer farms in South Africa with American dairy cattle is steadily proceeding, and a lucrative trade is being worked up. The steamer ' Atlantean,' which is now in port loading 2,000 tons of hay as export cargo for South Africa, will go from here to Galveston, Texas, to load dairy cattle for interior points in the Orange River Colony. The cattle are being sent to Africa by the British government to replace those which were either driven off or commandeered by the British during the war.
It is expected that the ' Atlantean ' will carry between 2,000 and 2,500 head of cattle on this trip. This will be her second voyage to South Africa with cattle.
Every animal accepted is subjected to a rigid examination, the utmost care being taken by the British government that all cattle sent to Africa shall be of high class and without a blemish.
For these cattle good prices are being paid, and southern cattle dealers are reaping a harvest in consequence. Great care is, however, exercised in the selection, and instances are known where out of forty or fifty cattle offered only a very small proportion were accepted.
The interests of the British government in the cattle shipping business are being looked after by Major Maude, of Ottawa, and he in turn is represented by Mr. Kirtaw, of New York, who is now at the Windsor, superintending the shipment of the hay cargo on the ' Atlantean.'
When seen last evening Mr. Kirtaw said he was not in a position to speak definitely as to the cattle business, as he was not the official who has charge of the purchasing. He knew, however, that the business had grown to large proportions.
The trade had its inception soon after the end of the war, and as soon as the British government assumed control of African affairs and began to replace the herds of Boer cattle which had been driven away during the war. He expected that the ' Atlantean ' would take about 2.500 head. They would be shipped to the interior of the country and' gradually distributed.
I bring this to the attention of the government because it has occurred to me, from reading this paragraph, that here would be a very good opportunity indeed for the shipping of cattle from Canada, and that this restocking of Boer farms should, to a very considerable extent, be done by Canadian cattle raisers. Has the attention of the government been directed to the subject matter of this paragraph, and have any representations been made to the imperial government, pointing out the desirability of their obtaining shipments of this kind as far as possible from Canada ?	*


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE (Hon. Sydney Fisher).: I may say that I was not aware of the statements contained in the paragraph cited, nor of the shipments in question. Immediately after it was announced that the imperial authorities were going to purchase cattle for the restocking of the Boer farms in South Africa most urgent representations were made by this gov-


Robert Laird Borden: eminent, through Lord Strathc'ona, to the imperial authorities that these purchases should be made in Canada, and explanations were given of what Canada could do in the way of supplying the demand. These representations were referred, by the Colonial Secretary of State, to the imperial officers in charge of the work, and we were informed that they would receive due consideration. A second time the attention of the imperial government was called to the fact that large purchases were being made in the United States on the lines indicated by this newspaper paragraph, but so far no attention has been paid by the imperial authorities to these representations.^



QUESTION OF PRIVILEGE.

Mr. J. T. SCHELL (Glengarry).: I rise, Mr. Speaker, to a question of privilege. On the 18th June instant the question was asked in this House, is J. T. Schell a member of the fil-m of McPherson & Schell ? I may answer in reply to that inquiry, Yes.
The matter to which this inquiry refers is one which arose from an order given by a Mr. Scott to the firm mentioned. The said order was given for one hundred shooks for cheese boxes to be sent to Glasgow, Scotland. The order was given on paper headed 1 Glasgow International Exhibition, 1901.' It was dated Ottawa, February 18th, 1901 ; signed W. D. Scott, Commissioner, per C. H. M. There was nothing to indicate that Mr. Scott was an officer of the Dominion government. In fact the terms of the order as received rather favoured the idea that Mr. Scott was a commissioner from the old country.
The order contained a request that a memorandum of the amount should be sent to Mr. Scott personally, not to any officer or department of the government. I may here state that the sum involved in this transaction is $4, with an additional $1.50 for package. At any rate, the order was received in my absence at Ottawa in the usual course of business, and was attended to by the manager of the business. The firm of which I am a member has before this refused orders which they knew to come from the Dominion government.
If any further evidence is required as to the understanding by our manager that the transaction was one with Mr. Scott personally, I may refer to the invoice, a press copy of which we have in our invoice book, and which is simply In this form :
W. D. Scott, Ottawa, to 100 sets cheese
hoops	$4 00
Crating, &c	 1 50

That same entry was carried through our books and posted in our ledger in exactly the same terms, as a transaction with Mr. Scott personally. The matter was carried

through all our books and, when the payment was made more than a year afterwards, I was again absent from Alexandria, being engaged in attendance on this House, and the receipt of the payment is a simple entry in the cash book credited to Mr. W. D. Scott. The manner in which this payment was made I was not aware of any more than I was of the transaction itself. The first intimation X had of there being any transaction whatever with the Dominion government was the question raised on the 18th of June, as appearing on the Order Paper.
This is a simple and straightforward statement of the whole transaction, and I should say ought to strike any man of common sense as evidence of my entire ignorance of the transaction, and, therefore, of the absence of any intention to infringe upon any law relating to the independence of the members of this House. I submit myself and the whole matter to the judgment of this honourable House.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE (Hon. Charles Fitzpatrick).: I move :
That the statement just read by Mr. Schell, the member for Glengarry, be referred to the Committee on Privileges and Elections.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Report of the Canadian Archives for the year 1902.-Hon. Mr. Fisher.

Mr. SAM. HUGHES (North Victoria).: Before the Orders of the Day are called, I *desire to draw your attention, Mr. Speaker, to the fact that one of the elevators, or lifts, as they are termed, running in this building, slipped yesterday. I was not aboard, but a number of possibly more valuable members were. These lifts should be so built that there would be no possibility of slipping. I draw your attention, Mr. Speaker, to this matter.


Sir. SPEAKER.: These elevators are not under the care of the Speaker of the House.



HARBOUR COMMISSIONERS OF MONTREAL.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 201) to provide for further advances to the Harbour Commissioners of Montreal, was -read the second time, and the House went into committee thereon.
The MINISTER OF FINANCE (Hon. W. S. Fielding).: This Bill is entirely a reproduction of the resolutions which the committee has already dealt with. The matter was very fully discussed at the former sitting', and I do not think there is anything [DOT]calling for notice, unless some hon. gentlemen desire further information.


Robert Laird Borden: Is the Bill in exact accordance with the terms of the resolutions passed by the House ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Yes.


Robert Laird Borden: If the hon. minister has the information at hand, would he please state the amount of advances, loans or assistance of any kind made since confederation to each of what may be called the great national ports of Canada ? I do not know that I could reasonably expect him to have the information here, but if lie has it, I would be glad if he would give it to me. I am not very familiar with the subject of these advances.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: In the earlier discussion I stated what advances had been made to the harbour of Montreal under similar legislation to this during recent; years, beginning with 1890. But I presume that wliat my hon. friend (Sir. Borden, Halifax) asks for now relates to the harbour of Quebec and-well,what other harbours would be included in his question ? I would like a definite statement, so that I can procure the information.


Robert Laird Borden: I do not know whether there have been loans or advances to other ports or not. Nor do I know of any source from which I could get the information in definite form. I thought possibly the hon. gentleman would have it in his department.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Of course, I can get the information. There were loans made under certain conditions to the port of Quebec, and I fancy these are the principal matters the hon. gentleman refers to. I cannot say off-hand whether loans have been made to other harbours. Generally speaking, I think not. Before the third reading of the Bill is taken, I will have the information at hand.


Robert Laird Borden: I refer more, particularly to Toronto, Montreal, Quebec, Halifax and St. John.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I think I can answer that. There has been nothing in the way of loans to the ports mentioned except in the cases of Montreal and Quebec. Whatever has been done for the other harbours has been done in the way of piers, dredging and other improvements of that nature.


Mr. SPROULE.: What is the condition of the interest account on old loans to Montreal ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: On these loans the harbour commissioners of the port have paid their interest promptly. There are no arrears.


Mr. TAYLOR.: That is not the case with Quebec.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Quebec I has not yet paid.

On section 4,


Mr. REID (Grenville).: I would like to ask the minister if the dry-dock in Montreal, known as Tate's dry-dock, belongs to the government ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: There is no dry-dock in Montreal contemplated bv this Bill.


John Dowsley Reid: I understood, when I was in Montreal the other day, that the government owned what was originally Tate's dry-dock.


The PRIME MINISTER.: That is a wharf built by the government down below, it is not a dry-dock.


John Dowsley Reid: It is not a dry-dock now ?


The PRIME MINISTER.: Never was, and never will be.


John Dowsley Reid: That is strange, because when I was fa Montreal the other day and had occasion to have a vessel taken out of the water, it was dried off in this dry-dock.


The PRIME MINISTER.: That is a private dock.
Bill reported.



ADULTERATION OF BUTTER.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 207) to prohibit the importation, manufacture or sale of adulterated, process, or renovated butter, oleomargarine, butterine or other substitutes for butter and to prevent the improper marking of butter, read the second time, and House went into committee thereon.
On section 3,
In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,-
(a)	' Creamery ' means a place where the milk or cream of not less than fifty cows is manufactured into butter ;
(b)	' Dairy ' means a place where the milk or cream of less than fifty cows is manufactured into butter ;
(c)	' Butter ' means the food product commonly known as butter, which is manufactured exclusively from milk or cream or both, with or without the addition of colouring matter, common salt or other harmless preservative ;
(d)	' Creamery butter ' means butter which is manufactured in a creamery ;
(e)	* Dairy butter ' means butter which is manufactured in a dairy.
(f)	Renovated butter ' or ' process butter * means any butter which has been melted, clarified or refined, and made to resemble butter.
Mr. POPE.: I have not read this Bill, but I would ask the minister in regard to fixing the number at fifty cows in order to constitute a creamery, whether butter that is marked dairy butter would imply a lower grade of butter than creamery butter ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE (Hon. Sydney Fisher).: I do not think it


Hon. Mr. FIELDING.: would. The object is to prevent what has been done in certain cases, and which is held to be a detriment to the export trade in butter. There is still in Canada some continuance of a practice which has generally been discontinued, of repacking small lots of butter into boxes or tubs, and marking it ' creamery,' and forwarding it as creamery butter. Now, our creamery butter lias a certain standard, and if butter is not so made, but is marked ' creamery butter,' there is a danger that it will not be up to the reputation which has attached to creamery butter. Complaints have been made to my officers of these packages as damaging the reputation of our creamery butter, therefore, it is that we put in this definition of creamery butter.


Rufus Henry Pope: I should say that it would be a reflection upon a farmer that had only forty-nine cows, if he was not permitted to mark his butter ' creamery butter,' although it may be made under the regular process of creamery manufacture. He would then come under the odium that might reflect upon butter stamped ' dairy.' The minister says that our butter has been injured to some extent. We should prevent that, but in safeguarding the reputation of our butter in England, we should be careful not to reflect upon a very good quality of butter that is made by individual farmers. After the experience of large dairying, we find now that the labour of carrying large quantities of milk to the factory has become so burdensome in some sections of the country that farmers are starting out with small separators and carrying the cream to the factory, and it is yet to be tested whether cream so collected is not going to produce a really first-class quality of butter. It is possible to collect this cream from large areas and manufacture it into a first-class quality of butter. Since the development of the dairy industry, in many parts of Canada we have to-day herds of fifty cows where we had not more than ten cows before. In passing this Act we should be careful to do nothing that would reflect upon the product of a man who has less than fifty cows, if it should be determined that their milk can be made under the regular creamery process into butter that will perhaps bring the highest price because the milk is not exposed to any other than the first-class conditions provided by the farmer.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I quite understand the objection the hon. gentleman (Mr. Pope) makes and there is some force in it. When we considered this section we found that we had to adopt a definite number. It would be very difficult in any other way to describe creamery butter. The ordinary acceptance of the term creamery butter is butter that is made in a cooperative factory and not on the individual farm. I understand fully that a great t many private dairies make just as good but-

ter as is made in any creamery or anywhere else in the country, but we certainly must acknowledge that when butter is made in very small lots and packed in a package it is almost impossible that it should have the character that creamery butter ordinarily has, and it was to avoid any such misrepresentation as is likely to occur under the present condition of affairs that we adopted this number as it would not be desirable to have any such butter sent forward under the name of creamery butter. I understand that the number fifty is rather an arbitrary number, but I do not know that we can get a much better number to serve the purpose. If we go much below fifty the dairies would be hardly of the character that the hon. gentleman has just described.


Rufus Henry Pope: Is that not a good argument for making it a little lower-say twenty-five instead of fifty ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I do not know that I would object if we put it at twenty-five or thirty instead of fifty, although fifty seems to be a very reasonable number. I think, as a matter of fact, that a great deal of dairy butter is sold at as high a price as creamery butter. Where the dairy butter is of the character that the hon. gentleman has described I think it is its reputation that gives it that price, but where the dairy is of a smaller character and the product cannot conform to the necessary uniformity and equality required by the export trade it would hardly be entitled to be marked as creamery butter. I am not particularly wedded to this particular number, but we thought it was as safe a number as we could take.


Rufus Henry Pope: Fifty cows would have a product sufficient to fill an ordinary package of fifty pounds, which would entitle a creamery to participate in the export trade.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: But perhaps a less number of cows hardly would.


Rufus Henry Pope: I would suggest that it should be made a less number. .


Mr. GILMOUR.: The product of fifty cows kept where the creamery is situated would have a better chance of being converted into good butter than if the product were gathered from different farms and taken to a creamery. The cows would be kept in one place, they would be managed in the same way, and because of that they would produce better quaility of butfier than the butter which would be made from the product of scattered herds. It is too bad if, by reason of this Bill going into effect, butter so made should get the name or the status of a secondary article. If you must give names to the different varieties of butter you must endeavour to find some means whereby you shall not prejudice the
kind of butter that I have spoken of in the minds of those who purchase it. There are farmers who keep about the number of cows that is mentioned in this subsection and who manufacture their own butter on their own farms. I believe that a better class of butter can be made in one dairy from the product of a single herd than can be made from the product of various herds.


Mr. HENDERSON.: I quite sympathize with what has been said by the hon. member for Compton (Mr. Pope) and the hon. member for East Middlesex (Mr. Gilmour) I think, for various reasons and especially for the reasons that these two hon. gentlemen have suggested, that the number fifty in this subsection is too large. I have understood that one of the difficulties in establishing creameries in sections of the country where creameries have not at all become common was to. get a sufficient number of people interested in the matter. I believe that if the law will permit butter made in a creamery with a less number of cows than fifty, to be marked and sold as creamery butter, it will assist people who may be interested in this matter to establish a creamery, where otherwise it would not be easily established, and for that reason and the reasons suggested by these hon. gentlemen I think, on further consideration the proposal I am about to make will meet with the views of the hon. minister. I beg to move that the word ' fifty ' in subsection (a) be struck out and that the word ' twenty-five ' be substituted in lieu thereof.


George Taylor: Make it twenty.


David Henderson: I am not particular whether it is twenty or twenty-five, but I thought it was quite sufficient if I split the number in two. It will then meet the case of a farmer who desires to put in the necessary plant and make creamery butter even if he only has forty or forty-five cows, or a less number than fifty, and it will meet the case of a neighbourhood where no creamery has been established and assist those who would be interested in it and who have perhaps ten, or fifteen cows, in getting a sufficient number to join together to start a creamery which might afterwards be enlarged so as to make an establishment taking the milk of perhaps 200 cows. I think the hon. minister is going to defeat the object he has in view by limiting this number to fifty, and depriving a certain number of people of the privilege in regard to selling their butter to which they are just as much entitled as others living in a section of the country where a larger number of people take an interest in the manufacture of creamery butter or where a farmer desires to enter into the manufacture of butter on his own account.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Any one who looks at
the market will notice the distinction at


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: The amendment proposed by the hon. member for Halton (Mr. Henderson) to reduce the figure is certainly worthy of consideration, but I think we ought not to change it without very careful consideration and without a full understanding of the subject at issue. The motion implies that there is to be a distinction drawn and that the principle of the Bill in drawing that distinction is a correct principle. I believe nobody will gainsay that fact. The market reports for years have drawn a distinction between creamery and dairy butter, but, there is no definition as to where the line should be drawn at what is creamery and what is dairy butter. It is perfectly true that there is a good deal of dairy butter which is made just as well as creamery butter and which is of just as high a Quality.
However, especially in the export trade there is a standard of creamery butter and a standard of dairy butter. All this Bill proposes to do is to draw the line where creamery butter and dairy butter are divided at the place of manufacture. In reply to the objections that have been taken as to the number of fifty cows, I may say that figure was adopted after considerable discussion and consideration and it is based to a certain extent on the fact that that Mr. SPROULE.
figure has already been defined in Acts of this kind. In Manitoba a local Act declares that a creamery shall be a place where the milk of more than fifty cows is made into butter, and in New Zealand, there is a similar law. My hon. friend from Halton need not fear that this law will interfere with the establishment of creameries. No man would put money into the establishment of a creamery unless he believed that he would get more than fifty cows milk. As a general rule, about 200 cows is the least number on which a creamery is started. We have to obviate giving latitude for a larger amount of dairy butter being marked as creamery butter. When first class dairy butter is marked creamery butter, no evil arises, but when inferior dairy butter or, repacked butter is shipped as creamery there is a decided danger to our export trade. Therefore some line of demarcation is necessary. There is no question but that where a farmer has fifty cows, he must be a superior farmer and his business would justify the employment of the best appliances and skill so that the chances are a hundred to one that the product of his dairy will be equal to creamery butter. On the other hand, where a farmer has a small number of cows it is just possible the standard of his butter may be sometimes doubtful. Therefore these large private dairies may be safely allowed to mark their butter ' creamery,' while the same rule would not apply to smaller dairies. When a man with a few cows really makes first class butter, in ninety-nine cases out of one hundred, he has a special local market and sells his butter on the reputation of his own name and not as creamery butter, and sometimes he gets a higher price for it than the price for export creamery butter. He will not suffer any detriment by this clause. I would strongly recommend the committee not to adopt any figure lower than ' fifty.'


Mr. WRIGHT.: I cannot conceive what advantage would be gained by lowering the number of ' fifty ' to ' twenty-five.'


Mr. COCHRANE.: You are not a farmer.


Aaron Abel Wright: I am not a farmer ? I handle more butter than you ever saw.


Matthew Henry Cochrane: You do not make more than I do.


Aaron Abel Wright: Yes, I have made more than you ever saw. The fact of the matter is that no creamery is carried on with a smaller number than fifty cows. There is no money in it. The creamery butter is the butter that is exported and not the dairy butter. The dairy butter is very largely sold in the locality in which it is made. In fact in the rural districts it is almost impossible for the farmers to get butter to supply home consumption. Where cheese factories are numerous they have

scarcely butter enough to supply the home demand. This butter therefore does not come into competition with creamery butter. The manufacturer of creamery butter has his own brand and he labels his butter by the name of the factory so that if his butter; is really good, he has the reputation of producing a first class article and he sells his butter at a higher price. If you reduce the number below ' fifty ' it would open the door for every one who thought that they had a fancy article to_ try and label it as creamery butter. No" good would come from reducing the number below fifty.


Matthew Henry Cochrane: The Minister of Agriculture must realize that it is not the number of cows that makes the quality of the butter so much as the process by which the butter is made. There is no argument In the contention of the hon. member for Renfrew (Hr. Wright), who says that it would not pay to run a creamery with less than 200 cows. I admit that, because in the running of a creamery you have to hire all the labour whereas a farmer who has twenty-five or thirty cows utilizes the labour of his family, and he can produce just as good butter as creamery butter if he makes it under the same process. In my own locality we have a factory and when it is running on cheese the milk is made into cheese, and as soon as the factory closes the cream goes to the creamery. How could any cream be in as good condition after it is drawn six or seven miles to the creamery, as it would be if the farmer made his own milk into butter by the creamery process in his own dairy ? This very fact should show the minister or anybody else that cream that is taken six or seven miles and churned in cans on the journey cannot be in as good condition as the milk that is made by the same process on your own farm. When the Experimental Farm was first established and creamery butter was first made there, they never had fifty cows on that farm, and yet I do not think that the Minister of Agriculture would want his butter branded as inferior to creamery butter although he did not have fifty cows. I would say to my hon. friend from Renfrew (Mr. Wright) with his boasted argument that he has made more butter than ever I have seen, that I did not know what made him such a sleek looking man ; it is the amount of grease he handles. I want him to be careful in making his butter that some of his whiskers do not fall into it.


Aaron Abel Wright: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Cochrane) does not seem to know there are creameries which manufacture butter from milk. Every creamery' does not gather in the cream and manufacture the butter from that, but there are a large number of creameries that take the milk and manufacture it into first class butter. It is the creamery butter that brings the highest price. It is
the creamery butter made in the Renfrew creamery that the hon. gentleman (Mr. Cochrane) eats in the restaurant and finer butter you cannot find anywhere. It is the creamery butter made in the Renfrew creamery that His Royal Highness ate on the train going to Vancouver, and better butter he could not eat.


Mr. MACICIE.: Do you make butter out of skim milk ?


Aaron Abel Wright: No, we do not make butter out of skim milk, or otherwise I would not be so sleek.


George Taylor: The fourth section of the Bill, which refers to the percentage of water in butter, applies to all butter, whether made in a creamery or in a dairy. I think that should be amended so as to apply only to creamery or dairy butter where there are over fifty cows.


Mr. ROBINSON (West Elgin).: If butter made in a dairy is made by the same process as butter made in a creamery,, it seems to me it should be called creamery butter. I happen to know where there are farmers' wives and daughters who make butter which is just as palatable and which commands as high a price as any creamery butter, and it seems to me that farmers who have twenty or twenty-five cows, and who make a first-class sample of dairy butter, should not be handicapped because they have not fifty cows as the Bill calls for. They should have the privilege of calling it creamery butter if they have the proper facilities for making it. I think the number of cows for creamery butter should be reduced to twenty-five.


Mr. MacLAREN.: I agree with what the hon. .member for West Elgin (Mr. Robinson) has said. I think it is right that butter which is not made by the latest process should be called dairy butter; but, if a farmer has twenty or twenty-five cows and uses cream separators in making butter, I think be should be allowed to call it creamery butter. In my section of the country that is generally the case. I would like the hon. minister to explain to the House how this process butter is made. In the United States, while oleomargarine and but-terine are heavily taxed, there is only a small tax on process butter. I think the House should understand all about it.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I would ask the hon. gentleman to leave that aside until we decide upon the number of cows for a creamery. What I said a few minutes ago in reply to the hon. member for Halton (Mr. Henderson) covers the point raised by the hon. member for West Elgin (Mr. Robinson). Nobody knows better than I do that a number of private dairies make first-class butter, as good as creamery butter. At the same time, the market reports show that creamery butter commands a price which dairy butter does not.


Tbe MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I move that the committee rise, report progress, and ask leave to sit again to-day. There is an intimation that an announcement is to he made to the House from the Senate.
Progress reported.



ROYAL ASSENT.

[Stage Direction]
A Message was delivered by the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod, as follows :
His Lordship the Chief Justice' of Canada, Deputy Governor, desires the immediate attention of your honourable House in the Chamber of the honourable the Seriate.
Accordingly, Mr. Speaker, with the House, went up to the Senate Chamber.
And having returned.
Mr. Speaker informed the House that His Lordship the Deputy Governor had been pleased to give, in His Majesty's name, the royal assent to the following Bills :
An Act to amend chapter 8 of the statutes of 1900, authorizing the granting of railway subsidies.
An Act to amend the Civil Service Superannuation Act.
An Act to amend the Act respecting the publication of the statutes.
An Act to amend the Act relating to the Custody of Juvenile Offenders in the province of New Brunswick.
An Act to amend the Expropriation Act.
An Act respecting the Kootenay Central Railway Company.
An Act respecting the Canadian Pacific Railway Company.
An Act respecting the Quebec and New Brunswick Railway Company.	>
An Act respecting the British Columbia Southern Railway Company.
An Act respecting the Canada National Railway and Transport Company.
An Act to amend the Yukon Territory Act.
An Act for the relief of William Francis Schooley.
An Act respecting the Huron and Ontario Railway Company.
An Act respecting the Niagara Grand Island Bridge Company.
An Act respecting the Ottawa, Northern and Western Railway Company.
An Act to correct a clerical error in the Act to incorporate the Edmonton and Slave Lake Railway Company.
An Act to incorporate the Quebec, Saguenay and Gulf of St. Lawrence Railway Company.
An Act to incorporate the Coast Yukon Railway Company.
An Act to incorporate the Kootenay, Cariboo and Pacific Railway Company.
An Act to incorporate the Joliette and Lake Manuan Colonization Railway Company.
An Act respecting the Great North-west Central Railway Company.
An Act respecting the Grand Trunk Railway Company of Canada.
Hon. Mr. FISHER.: An Act further to amend the Dominion Controverted Elections Act.
An Act to amend the Militia Pension Act, 1901.
An Act respecting the Winnipeg Western Land Corporation, Limited.
An Act respecting the Ontario and Qu'Appelle Land Company, Limited.
An Act respecting the Mutual Life Assurance Company of Canada.
An Act respecting the Bank of Montreal.
An Act to incorporate the Shipping Federation of Canada.
An Act respecting the Royal Trust Company.
An Act to amend the Dominion Elections Act, 1900.
An Act respecting the Atlantic, Quebec ajjd Western Railway Company.
An Act respecting the Hudson'3 Bay and Pacific Railway Company.
An Act to incorporate the PSre Marquette International Bridge Company.
An Act to incorporate the Regina and Hudson's Bay Railway Company.
An Act respecting the Nipissing and James Bay Railway Company.
An Act to incorporate the Macleod, Cardston and Montana Railway Company.
An Act respecting the Lindsay, Bobcaygeon and Pontypool Railway Company.
An Act respecting the Edmonton-Yukon and Pacific Railway Company.
An Act respecting the Ottawa Electric Railway Company.
An Act to incorporate the Nipissing and Pen-tiac Railway Company.
An Act respecting the Calgary and Edmonton Railway Company.
An Act respecting the Canadian Northern Railway Company.
An Act respecting the Alberta Railway amj, Coal Company.
An Act respecting the Hamilton and Lake Erie Power Company, and to change its name to ' The Jordan Light, Heat and Power Company.'
An Act respecting the Mexican Light and Power Company, Limited.
An Act respecting the Lake Erie and Detroit River Railway Company.
An Act respecting the Canada North-west Land Company (Limited).
An Act respecting the Canada Permanent and Western Canada Mortgage Corporation, and to change its name to ' The Canada Permanent Mortgage Corporation.'
An Act respecting the Eastern Townships Bank.
An Act to incorporate the Sault St. Louis Light and Power Company.
An Act to incorporate the Bank of Winnipeg.
An Act respecting the Dominion Burglary Guarantee Company, Limited, and to change its name to ' The Dominion Guarantee Company, Limited.'
An Act to incorporate the Empire Accident and Surety Company.
An Act respecting the Crown Bank of Canada.
An Act respecting certain trust funds of the Diocese of Moosonee.

An Act respecting the Desjardins Canal.
An Act to amend the Public Works Act.
An Act to amend the Electric Light Inspection Act.
An Act respecting the Niagara-Welland Power Company, Limited, and to change its name to ' The Niagara-Welland Power Company.'
An Act respecting the Canada Atlantic Railway Company.
An Act to incorporate the North-west Coal and Coke Railway Company.
An Act respecting the Alberta Central Railway Company.
An Act to incorporate the Erie Ontario Power Company.
An Act to incorporate the Canadian Industrial Corporation, Limited.
An Act to amend the Weights and Measures Act.
An Act to incorporate the Hudson's Bay and Occidental Railway Company.
An Act to incorporate the City and County Bank of Canada.
An Act to incorporate the Northern Bank.
An Act to incorporate the Pacific Bank of Canada.
An Act to incorporate the Richmond and Drummond Fire Insurance Company.
An Act respecting the United Empire Life Insurance Company.
An Act to confer on the Commissioner of Patents certain powers for the relief of the Standard Car Truck Company.
An Act to confer on the Commissioner of Patents certain powers for the relief of the International Railway Appliance Company.
An Act to amend the Inland Revenue Act.
An Act respecting the Canadian Order of the Woodmen of the World.
An Act to incorporate the Federal Oil Company.
An Act respecting the Mutual Fire Insurance Company of the City of Montreal, and to change its name to * The Montreal-Canada Fire Insurance Company.'
An Act for the relief of William Allen.
An Act for the relief of James Reid Steele,
An Act to amend the Criminal Code, 1892.
An Act respecting the Canadian North-west Irrigation Company.
An Act respecting the Canadian Steel Company.
An Act to incorporate the Sterling Bank of Canada.
An Act to incorporate the Huron, Erie and Buffalo Company.
An Act respecting the St. Mary's River Railway Company.
An Act to incorporate the Cardiff Railway Company.
An Act respecting the Interprovincial and James Bay Railway Company.
An Act respecting the Klondike Mines Railway Company.
An Act to incorporate the Hamilton, Galt and Berlin Railway Company.
An Act respecting the Elgin and Havelock Railway Company.
An Act to incorporate the Consolidated Trusts Corporation.
An Act respecting the Good Shepherd Reformatory in the City of St. John, New Brunswick.
An Act for granting to His Majesty certain sums of money for the public service of the financial year ending the 30th June. 1903.



ADULTERATION OF BUTTER.

[Stage Direction]
House again in committee on Bill (No. 207) to prohibit the importation, manufacture or sale of adulterated, process or renovated butter, oleomargarine, butterine. or other substitutes for butter ; and to prevent the improper marking of butter.-The Minister of Agriculture.
Thomas Simpson Sproule: I understand that we are on section 3 subsection A. I move as amendment to that:
' Creamery butter ' means "butter made by the ordinary creamery process, including the separation of the cream from the milk when fresh by the cream separator.
It seems to me that this is really the origin of creamery butter-the use of the cream separator. Whether there are many cows or few, if the butter is made upon the same principle and by essentially the same methods as the creamery uses, it ought not to be stamped with a name indicative of inferiority. This will affect a great many farmers who use the modern methods of making butter, including the use of the cream separator. Having ten, fifteen or twenty cows, they use the creamery appliances and the creamery methods. They send their sons and daughters to the Experimental Farm to receive instructions in making butter ; and these young people come home and, when they engage in making butter on the farm, they follow the same lines as are followed in the creamery, have their dairies arranged in the same way and produce an article often as good as the creamery butter. They ought not to be compelled to call their butter by a name which will mark it as inferior to creamery butter and so reduce it in value by from two to four cents a pound.


Mr. SMITH (Wentworth).: I was going to move an amendment on exactly the same lines as that of the hon. member for East Grey (Mr. Sproule). As his covers the ground so well, I shall not present mine. It seems to me that creamery butter is simply butter made from cream separated from the milk while it is sweet and manufactured at once into butter by the process followed in large factories. A definition of it such as the hon. member for East Grey has given seems to me far better than a definition based upon the number of cows kept. It would not matter if a man had only five cows, so long as the butter was made after the process approved of being the best The

definition of ' creamery,' it seems to me, ought to be one which would indicate the manufacture, not necessarily the number of cows that are kept.


Mr. MACLEAN.: I do not see that the amendment moved by the hon. member tor East Grey (Mr. Sproule) and supported by the hon. member for Wentworth (Mr. Smith) quite meets the case. These hon. gentlemen say that the process is the same as the creamery process, but it is not quite the same. The creamery is a large institution with everything up-to-date. It is distinct from a smaller concern, even if it be of the same kind, where they have not the some appliances and facilities. The process may be the same, but they have not the same facilities for carrying it out. Now, these creameries have succeeded the old dairy system, they have come out from the old style dairy and introduced this new system called the creamery system. By reason of tills improved system, they have increased the price of butter, and are in a position to pay the farmers more for their cream. If so much good has come out of this process, as X believe it lias, we ought to preserve all there is of good in it, and should be careful about allowing those who are in the old style dairy business to work under it. If the creamery people have gone out and made a superior brand, why should they not have the benefit of it? The farmers cannot complain. They have always called their butter dairy butter, and the mere use of the separator on a farm does not make a dairy into a creamer^, to my mind. The definition of the hon. minister is not a systematic definition, but I would prefer it to that proposed by the hon. member for East Grey.


Rufus Henry Pope: What would the hon. gentleman (Mr. Maclean) propose, if he does not agree with this amendment ?


William Findlay Maclean: I cannot accept this amendment, and I would prefer what the hon. minister has proposed, though it is not a systematic definition.


Rufus Henry Pope: What would the hon. gentleman prefer ?


William Findlay Maclean: I would leave it as it is in the Bill, rather than accept the amendment.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I think that the difficulty with the hon. member for East York (Mr. Maclean) is that he is not aware of the fact that hundreds of cream separators are being sold to-day and that farmers own them.


William Findlay Maclean: Oh, yes, I am. But what you say does not enable them to make creamery butter.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: They make it on the same principle. They put in a supply of ice, they send their children to be instructed in Mr. SMITH (Wentworth).
the manufacture and they have their butter made in exactly the same way as it is made in the co-operative factories. But when they bring that butter to the market they are offered a price perhaps from two to four cents below that of creamery butter. The purchaser will tell them it is only dairy butter and will refer them to the prices in the daily papers, showing creamery butter so many cents a pound higher than dairy. 1 do not see why we should put an embargo on the individual farmer, when he is prepared to adopt the modern methods and make butter exactly as it is made in the large creameries, using care and intelligence in carrying out the process and making an article equal in quality with the other, so far as an expert can determine. By this Bill, we are going to put a stigma on that butter and reduce it in price as compared, it_ may be, with butter made by the same process on the farm alongside his own.


Mr. BELL.: It seems to me that some way out of the difficulty might be found by the hon. minister. It is clear that it is going to be a difficult matter to define creamery so as to include all creamery butter and exclude the product of private dairies. The point on which the hon. member for East Grey has based his amendment is the use of the creamery separator. Of course, the cream separator is used in all creameries ; but I hardly think that one would undertake to define the whole process of the manufacture of creamery butter as the use of the cream separator in separating the dream from the milk. That would not satisfactorily define the creamery process, which involves the use of milk in such large quantities that it can be used as soon as it has reached the proper point of ripening. In a private dairy, the milk must be accumulated and the churning must be delayed so long that it is impossible to make butter of the gilt-edge quality that is turned out from the creamery. It has occurred to hie, and I offer it as a suggestion to the hon. minister, that, possibly, the difficulty might be got over by making another grade. Instead of separating all into creamery and dairy, it would be better to recognize the efforts put forth by the farmers in procuring modern appliances and making butter by the best process, so that, in some instances, it is quite equal to the creamery butter. A second-class might be made called 'private creamery' or 'small creamery.' This would provide for the product of comparatively small dairies in which the creamery process is used as nearly as it can be reached by the small farmers.


James Gilmour: The hon. minister would have us define creamery butter as that made in a place where the milk of not less than fifty cows is used. In order to make it correct, it would be better that the term ' creamery ' should be defined as a process deserving the name, and give them two classes of creamery butter, one the co-opera-

tive and the other the private creamery butter. This would define it exactly as it is. The manufacture is by the same process as that used in the co-operative creamery, and it deserves the name ' creamery ' as much as the other though fewer cows may be used. While X am on my feet, I would like to ask the hon. minister the meaning of the term ' cow ' in the Bill. The hon. minister bases this upon fifty cows, does he mean fifty head, or does he mean fifty times so much milk. In the management of our butter and cheese factories throughout the country the term ' cow ' has been known and understood as 3,000 pounds of milk. That has been the term used and understood for forty years.


Mr. ROSS (Ontario).: X think the hon. member for Pictou (Mr. Bell) has probably come the nearest to the mark of any of the speakers in providing for the classification of butter. As an hon. member pointed out, it would not pay to run a creamery where you had the milk of less than fifty cows, that is what is known as a creamery. Clause (d) says that creamery butter means butter which is manufactured in a creamery. As has been pointed out, there are many farmers in the country who have not more than from twenty to forty cows. Under these circumstances, that class of people would be very well protected by calling their places private creameries. It is true, as the hon. member for East Gery (Mr. Sproule) has pointed out, that there are not only hundreds, but thousands of cream separators in use throughout this country. The milk is taken warm from the cow, and the cream is extracted by separators, and that cream is precisely of the same quality as is used in the larger creamery. But probably there may not be enough cream for that day's churning, hence it is held over till the next day, the result being that the cream thus held over, while it is very good, is not exactly the same as cream from the large creamery, which is manufactured on the day it is separated. I had the pleasure of going into a dairy last year, where I think they had an output of about 500 pounds of butter a week. It was beautiful butter, I had the pleasure of tasting it, and I am sure it was as nice as any creamery butter could be. But to my mind you could not designate that as a butter factory, or creamery. It seems to me there should be a sharp distinction drawn between the two, and that it would not be at all detrimental to the dairy interests if dairy butter were described as butter which is manufactured in a dairy. I am sure there is not a member of this House who wishes in any way to detract from the reputation of dairy butter. I have been ^buying dairy butter for probably twenty-five years, over the counter in my store, dealing with farmers and their wives nearly all my life. Under these circumstances, I have purchased a great deal of butter, and I have noticed during
the last few years, say the last ten or fifteen years, a very material advance in the quality of butter produced by the farmers. There are many dairies in our section which are up-to-date, and have nearly all the requirements of a creamery, and turn out a magnificent article which goes direct to the large centres for consumption. Those people should be protected by making, as the member for Pictou (Mr. Bell) suggests, another class of butter called home creamery, or private creamery butter.


William Scott Maclaren: I come from a dairy county and know some thing about butter making. I quite agree with the members who think there ought to be a third class established. If that were done, I think that to constitute a butter factory the number of cows should be raised very much higher than it is in the Bill. Those who know' anything about butter making know that you cannot run a creamery with fifty cows, nor even with 200 cows, that is, a profitable creamery. With anything less than 300 cows you cannot run a satisfactory creamery, because the apparatus is somewhat expensive, and you have to keep a first-class butter maker, and pay all the expenses you would in connection with a larger factory. I would suggest that if a third class were made, called a private creamery, for private creamery butter, you should raise the standard of the number of cows which would constitute a creamery or a butter factory. I quite agree with the member for Ontario (Mr. Ross) when he says that the quality of butter that we get from the farmers has very much improved. I thought the hon. gentleman was treading upon dangerous ground when he suggested there might have been a time when every farmer's wife and daughter did not make first-class butter, because with most farmers' wives and daughters it is a very tender subject for anybody to suggest that the butter they bring into a store is not the very best that was ever brought into the market. But I appreciate the difficulties of making a difference between creamery and dairy butter. My own experience is that probably those who buy these articles put a little too high a premium on the creamery butter as compared with the dairy butter. I myself have used dairy butter for the last fifteen years, and I prefer it to any creamery butter that I ever used, and have got it from the same man for all that time.


William Ross: It is not spotted butter J


William Scott Maclaren: No, we make better butter in Canada than they do across the line. I think the suggestion for a third class is a very good one, and I would suggest, in defining what a creamery is that it should mean a place where the milk of at least 200 cows is made into butter; then fix another class between dairy and creamery butter.


Mr. KAULBACH.: I can scarcely agree with my hon. friend from Pictou (Mr. Bell) in suggesting a second class for butter, because it strikes me that would tend rather to deteriorate the grade of butter manufactured by a creamery not coming under the purview of this Bill. It would be calling the second grade of butter an inferior grade, and in consequence of which it would bring in the market a smaller price, and would be prejudicial to the smaller butter factories that manufacture butter of as good a quality as that made in the larger creameries. The same method is employed for the manufacture of creamery butter not coming under this Act, only it is made in smaller quantities. The same appliances are used, and the article produced is of a quality equally as good as that made by a first class creamery. Now, I agree with my hon. friend from Bast Northumberland (Mr. Cochrane) who placed the matter very clearly. He said that where the cream is transferred from the farm to the creamery, some distance away it is injured in transit, and would not be as good as that which was made more directly at home into butter. I think that is reasonable, and I feel that we should give encouragement to the smaller manufacturers, and in no way put them at a disadvantage in the market by a clause in this Bill discriminating between dairy butter and creamery butter, which would seem to question whether the butter they produce is first class, by describing it as a second grade, and which would mean a second class price, an inferior price, while the third grade would mean a still lower price. I think that would affect materially these smaller industries that are now being encouraged in various parts of this Dominion. In my own county we are now introducing cream separators, which are making butter equal to anything that can be made in any part of Canada. We are beginning to export. That grade of butter, I fear, if placed on the market and called anything else than creamery butter, would bring a lesser price, and those who are manufacturing it would suffer a loss. Therefore, I cannot exactly agree with my hon. friend from Pictou in having butter graded as one, two and three.


William Ross: This is a case, I think, where every tub should sit upon its own bottom, where creamery butter should be marked creamery butter, and dairy butter should be marked dairy butter. There is one thing we have to look to, and that is the foreign market for Canadian butter. We cannot 4>e too careful about the quality of the butter that we prepare for the market. It is a fact that the butter which comes from New Zealand brings from 2s. 6d. to 3s. sterling more than the butter which is exported from Canada. New Zealand butter comes next to Danish butter in the London market, and unless we look sharp and see that we prepare our


William Scott Maclaren: butter carefully, our trade will suffer. It is very essential to pay attention to the kind of packages in which the batter is sent. They say that the packages in which the butter from New Zealand comes, helps as much to sell the butter as the quality of the butter itself. There is no doubt that there has been a great improvement made in the quality of dairy butter as compared with what it was in my early days. What would be considered good butter for the table then would scarcely be used in the kitchen to-day. We are getting very particular about our tastes. Our tastes have improved and we want high class butter for our table and good butter for our cooking. I have packed a great deal of butter for myself, and I have seen it packed for other people when I was serving my apprenticeship in other shops, and my experience was that the farmers, or the farmers' wives and daughters, prepared better butter for their own table generally than they would think of sending to the shops for sale.


Charles Edwin Kaulbach: I disagree with my hon. friend (Hon. Mr. Ross).


William Ross: I am not afraid of calling a spade a spade, or of telling the truth when it is necessary to tell it. I think it would be a great mistake if we were to attempt to brand dairy butter in the same way as butter manufactured in a creamery. The great object we should have in view is to maintain the quality of our butter for the export trade. As to what we consume ourselves, we can manage that pretty well and suit ourselves as to what kind and quality of butter we like.


Mr. JOHNSTON (Cardwell).: 
The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Considerable good, I think, will come out of this discussion. I am glad to see, while there has been a certain amount of criticism of the provisions of this Bill, and of this clause, there does not seem to me to be any unanimity as to what substitute shall be adopted. I appreciate very fully what my hon. friend from East York (Mr. Maclean) a few minutes ago said, and I do not know that I could add much to it, as to the good work which the creamery system has done for the dairy and butter interests of Canada. Anybody who is at all familar with the butter trade, knows how co-operative work in creameries has added to the trade and profits of the dairymen of the country.


Robert Johnston: Have the creameries or the people who have been educated by the men the government sent
out, and who have used modern appliances on the farm raised the quality of butter in this country ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: The work which has been done by the various agencies for the purpose of expanding knowledge amongst the dairymen of the country is the basis of all the improvement, but the profits or the improvement could not have been as great had not co-operative dairying been adopted in Canada. I venture to say that if we were to leave cooperative dairying and go back to the old system of individual dairying there would be an immediate decrease of many millions of dollars in the profits of the dairymen and farmers of this country. Therefore, I consider that anything that is going to jeopardize or deteriorate the co-operative dairying of the country would be a very great hurt to the farmers and would interfere materially with their future progress.


Robert Johnston: The hon. minister has a dairy at the Experimental Farm. I suppose he claims that the butter made there is as good as any creamery butter that is made ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I think it is good butter.


Robert Johnston: Well then, it has to be branded differently from creamery butter under this Bill, because the tartn has not fifty cows. It is not only the farmers who will suffer as a result of this branding, but the experimental farm will lose also, unless they get fifty cows.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I am glad the hon. gentleman has brought up that instance. It is an exact illustration of what I said a few minutes ago in regard to the best quality of dairy butter. The Experimental Farm dairy is a dairy. It is not a creamery, and yet that dairy butter sells in the city of Ottawa at a price considerably higher than any creamery butter sells for in Canada. That is the case with dozens, and I might say hundreds and perhaps even thousands of farmers in this country who make butter and who have made a reputation for themselves and for their excellent dairy butter, and who are selling it at a higher price than that which creamery butter brings.


Robert Johnston: You say that it sells higher in Ottawa than any creamery butter in the country. If you export that to the old country would it have as good a brand as creamery butter, or will it have an inferior brand ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: It will have to be branded dairy butter under this Act. If the old country market pays more for creamery than for that butter then it will have to be sold for less.

*My point is that dairy butter made in the *way butter is made on the Experimental Farm-and hundreds and perhaps thousands of our dairy men do make it in that way- is sold at a price at which you could not export it without losing money. They can sell it on their individual reputation at a higher price on the local market than they can sell it at for export. My hon. friend from Cardwell (Mr. Johnston) says it would be a great hardship if the butter of the farmers were to be marked dairy butter so that they could not get ns good a price for it as if were creamery butter. This butter is sold to local dealers who know perfectly well whether it is dairy butter or creamery butter, and while to-day the dealers pay the makers the price of dairy butter, they have the right to mark that butter ' creamery butter ' and to export it as such, but the farmer does not get the advantage of the two or three cents a pound difference and he will not get it in the future more than in the past. Because, even if he marketed his butter, under one of the amendments proposed by hon. gentlemen opposite, as creamery butter, the local dealer would say :	I know that you make it yourself and that it is not creamery butter. If the dealer exports it as creamery butter, it is he who reaps the benefit and not the farmer. I am afraid that the suggestion of the hon. member for Pictou (Mr. Bell), that we should have three classes instead of two would be a little cumbersome. The trade to-day has an established quotation for two kinds of butter, so that I fear the hon. gentleman's proposal is not practicable. The only reason that this Bill proposes to say what shall be creamery butter and what shall not beJcreamery butter, is that there has grown up a custom amongst certain people, of marketing dairy butter as creamery butter and that is dangerous to the reputation of our creamery butter. The ob-.ieet of this Bill is that that danger shall be averted. My hon. friend from East Grey (Mr. Sproule) proposes.
Creamery butter shall be a butter manufactured by the ordinary creamery process Including the separation of the cream from the milk when fresh by the cream separator.
I quite agree with the member for East York (Mi-. Maclean) and the member for Pictou (Mr. Bell) that this definition would be far worse than the definition I have submitted as to the milk of a certain number of cows being required to constitute a creaMpry. It is true that most creamery butt* is made from milk the butter fat of which lias been separated from the other parts of the milk by the centrifugal separator. It is true that this system is used liy a good many private dairies, but it is not the only means of separation by any means, and it is only one stage in the manufacture of butter. It is just as important that the cream should be properly ripened, that it should be churned at the exact state of Hon. Mr. FISHER.
ripeness in a proper kind of churn, and that other details of the manufacture should be careful!}- attended to. The definition of my hon. friend (Mr. Sproule) is therefore not complete by any means. It is true that in many private dairies all these things are attended to as carefully as in a creamery, but the chances are that for general market purposes the product is not likely to be as perfectly uniform as tlie product of the creamery. The chief reason why our creamery butter commands a higher price on the market is largely because of its uniform quality. When a dealer orders a 100 tubs of creamery butter he knows that every tub of it is likely to be similar to every other tub, while if he orders twenty or fifty tubs of dairy butter the chances are that there will be a considerable variation of quality even in the individual tubs. That is one reason for believing that the size of the place where the butter is manufactured is an important element in considering whether the butter ought be marked creamery or dairy. Any definition such as that given by the member for East Grey must necessarily fail in that element of uniformity. I may state frankly to the committee that my officers and myself have tried to get a definition which would Include some such definition as this offered by the hon. member (Mr. Sproule) but we have failed to find one which would be complete, and after careful consideration we have concluded that the definition relating to the number of cows which contribute milk to a factory is on the whole the better one. I am not yet convinced that the suggestion of the hon. member for Halton as to the line of demarcation is better than the one proposed in the, Bill. I grant with my hon. friend from East York that the definition in the Bill is not perfect, but I have failed to find a definition that is more perfect.


William Findlay Maclean: 200 cows would be a better definition.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: My hon. friend would be right if we were able to have more than two classes. The reason the number was limited to 50 cows was so as to include small creameries which in certain sections of the country are frequent, more frequent than is good for the dairy industry, and so as to include a few very' large individual dairies where practically the process, the appliances, and the arrangements are all the same as in a creamery. My hon. friend from Lunenburg (Mr. Kaulbach) talks about creameries being started on a very small scale. I can assure him that co-operative creameries cannot be started successfully, unless they have a very considerable number of cows to supply the milk to them. It might be that somebody would start a creamery with from 50 to 100 cows, but if be did not largely increase that number in the second season, his creamery would have to go to the wall for lack of

profit Under these circumstances, it has not been proved to me that a better definition of the word ' creamery ' can be adopted than the one which has been drawn up after consideration by the department.
BRB. As I come from a county which is very largely engaged in the dairying industry, I wish to say a few words with reference to this Bill. As I understand the Bill, it provides that the product of a butter factory, where the milk and the butter fat are separated at the factory and the Cream is manufactured into butter, will be placed on the market under the same name as the product of another butter factory where the cream has been gathered from the farmers and brought to the factory and manufactured into butter, although the cream that has been gathered may in some instances be separated cream, in'other instances cream raised from shallow vessels, and in other instances cream raised from deep cans or cans put in water. I would like, before going any further, to hear from the minister whether such would be the case.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: There is nothing in the Bill to separate the different classes of creameries to which my hon. friend has referred. There are in this country a large number of creameries where the milk is brought to the creamery and there separated and churned. There is another class where the cream is separated from the milk at private farms, and the cream only is sent to the factories. There is nothing in the Bill to provide for separating these two classes.


Mr. ERB.: Such being the case, I would have reason to object to this Bill being passed in its present form. Where cream is raised in different ways, and kept several 'lays before it is gathered and manufactured into butter, I can easily see that the product cannot be so good as it would be if the cream were separated all in the same way, even though it were done by a private farmer. In the township where I live there is a farmer who keeps from 25 to 30 cows, who has a separator, who churns'every day in the week, and who sends his butter to Toronto. That butter, he tells me, fetches the highest price. If this Bill is passed, he will have to label his butter dairy butter, although it is exactly the same as the best butter that is manufactured in large butter factories.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: May I ask my hou. friend in what way this Bill would prevent that ?


Dilman Kinsey Erb: I do not say that it would prevent it; but it would place the creamery butter at an advantage, although it might he inferior.


Mr. MacLAREN (Perth).: It would be creamery butter, no matter whether the 171
cream was gathered or separated. There is nothing in this Bill to interfere with that,


Dilman Kinsey Erb: I do not think the hon. gentle^ man understands me rightly. I understand that the butter from such a factory would be labelled creamery butter, whether it was made from gathered cream or from separated cream. I claim that the one may be inferior to the other. The chances are that the butter from a factory where the separation takes place every day by a separator, would be better than the butter from a factory where that was not done, but no better than butter from a farm where it was manufactured on the latest scientific principles. I for my part cannot see any necessity for passing a Bill of this kind at all, apart from placing restrictions on the manufacture of adulterated butter. Apart from that, I think butter can be sold on its merits, as it has been up to the present. The minister tells us that the butter made on the Experimental Farm here fetches the highest price. It does that on its reputation, and I cannot see why the manufacturers of butter throughout the country cannot sell butter on its reputation. I think we are going altogether too far with legislation of this kind. The tendency is to place restrictions on trade. We are getting altogether too paternal; we have almost everything inspected now. In recent years we have had the Fruit Marks Act, twine inspection, and the time will come when we have almost everything inspected, even the clothing we wear, to see that it is what it is represented to be. I think we are going altogether too far in that direction.


Mr. McGOWAN.: I -would like to ask the minister if it is possible, by some system of inspection, to give certain parties the right to mark their butter as creamery butter. I am satisfied that there is some butter made in private creameries which is better than that made in butter factories ; and if some system of inspection could be provided, it seems to me it would get over the difficulty and be an incentive to people to adopt better appliances and a better system of making butter.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I would not like to undertake to have inspectors appointed all over the country to inspect butter and decide whether it was creamery or dairy butter. I do not think that would be practicable.


Aaron Abel Wright: The hon. gentleman seems to think if this Bill passes, it will have an injurious effect on the farmers who make butter. It will not have an injurious effect at ail. The time will come when there will not be a single pound of dairy butter made in tliis country. Forty-five or fifty years ago there was comparatively no cheese made in factories. That has been changed and we have now no home-made cheese. The same

will be tlie ease with dairy butter. In my part of the country farmers' wives find that they have enough to do without making butter, and those who send the milk to our factories, instead of making butter at home, buy it from us. You will find that in a short time there will be no dairy butter offered for sale.


Robert Johnston: If this Act is going to have no beneficial effect, what is the use of passing it ?


Aaron Abel Wright: This is for the export trade. We want to know that our creamery butter is really creamery butter.


Robert Johnston: At present, should this Bill pass, it would bar dairy-made butter from the old country market to a certain extent.


Aaron Abel Wright: There is none going there that amounts to anything.


Robert Johnston: I think that you are mistaken.


Aaron Abel Wright: No, I am not, I know it.


Rufus Henry Pope: I think that the remarks of the bon. gentleman who has just taken his seat show that the best way to remedy all these matters is to let the market supply and demand take their course. He has proved that, without any special legislation whatever, we are getting out of the dairy manufacture of butter and will soon be completely out of it. It requires no legislation to bring that about. The same thing may be said of butter as of cheese. The manufacture in the co-operative building and the improvement of the quality have resulted in the improved articles securing the full market, so that there is something in the statement that we are inclined to be rather too paternal in our legislation. There is some common sense left yet in the agricultural community, and notwithstanding1 the severe criticism to which we hay-seeds are sometimes submitted, we have acquired sufficient common sense to come out about right occasionally in our life. If we find that we get more money from our milk when we put it into creameries than when we utilize it at home, we are going to put that milk into those creameries, and the butter manufactured there will establish its reputation without requiring the brand of any government. While this discussion has proved very beneficial, it would be wcyll for us to consider more, carefully whether we should adopt anj^jhjjise that would have a branding effecttny class of butter manufactured in tljhoMurrtr.y. It is not the home market that th^tm^. minister is afraid of. He knows that the home consumers would choose a good quality of butter and that it would be very largely dairy butter, which is complimentary of course to the manufacturers of dairy butter. The only reason of this measure is the


Aaron Abel Wright: export trade. The hon. gentleman is afraid of the reputation our butter may have abroad. It does seem to me we might get at that in some way without reflecting on all the butter consumed in our own market. The bulk of the butter made in the dairies is consumed at home, and we should be very careful how we interfere with that business. I would suggest that it would be better to allow this clause to stand and deal with the balance of the measure. If more time w'ere given to consider the matter, we would perhaps arrive at a better solution.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I am quite willing to let this clause stand, and I have no wish to force this measure through the House. It is a matter of the very greatest consequence for dairy interests, and I wish to have the Bill as perfect as possible. The definition in the Bill is the best we could devise after very careful consideration, and if a better solution can be suggested, I should be very glad to know it, but so far none better has been suggested. Before leaving this clause, I would like to refer to one or two remarks made by the hon. members for Cardwell and Compton. The hon. member for Cardwell asked me why this proposal was set down in the Bill. For several years back-to a less extent formerly necessary; but to a steadily increasing extent latterly-this matter has been brought to the attention of my department. It has also been discussed at various dairy association meetings in Canada. The exporters claim that to-day there is a considerable amount of inferior butter which is not creamery, in the ordinary acceptance of the term, but which is marked and exported as creamery butter, and is hurting the imputation of our creamery butter in the old country markets.


John McGowan: Is it factory butter ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: No, it cannot be, because they tell me it is not creamery butter.


John McGowan: Creamery and factory, I suppose, are the same ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: In the ordinary acceptance of the term, yes. Creamery butter is generally supposed to be made in a co-operative factory. This butter does not come from co-operative factories. Just where it does come from, I have not been able to find out. In some instances, I am told it is butter bought in some small quantities and packed into packages used for export. In other cases, it may be dairy, packed originally into packages used for export. But whichever it is, it is marked by the dealer as creamery butter, and is sent forward as such, and our reputation for creamery butter in Europe is being injured.


Rufus Henry Pope: Is it renovated butter ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: No, that clause would only deal with butter which goes through a certain process of melting, washing and so on. This butter is not treated in that way.


Rufus Henry Pope: Could we not deal with it that way '!


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: 1 hardly think it would be possible. That is the reason why it is felt necessary we should provide that people should not put the word ' creamery ' on a package which did not contain creamery butter, and therefore we have to define what creamery but ter is. At present the term is wide and rather loose. The definition is generally accepted in the trade, but if one were to go into a court of law and try to prove what was creamery butter he would find it rather difficult. Therefore, a definition is required. The hon. member for Compton spoke as though under this Bill all butter must be marked. The Bill does not provide for that. It simply prohibits the putting on of the word ' creamery ' on a package of butter, which does not come under the definition of creamery butter under this Bill. When a person has dairy or any other kind of butter, he need not mark it at all. He need not mark it creamery butter even if it is creamery butter, but this Bill forbids the improper use of the word ' creamery ' on a package of butter which does not come under the definition of creamery butter under this Bill. It does not impose upon the ordinary dairy butter maker the necessity of stamping his goods ' dairy butter.' For that matter it does not impose upon the manufacturer of creamery butter the duty of stamping his butter with that name. It only provides that if any person puts the word 'creamery' on his goods when those goods are not 'creamery butter' as defined by this Bill, then he comes within the penalty of the Bill, and then only. I think, that, with that explanation, the committee will see that it is wise to adopt some definition of that kind and impose that obligation upon those who deal in certain classes of butter. I am quite ready to have the clause stand for the purpose of affording the opportunity to consider what better definition can be adopted.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I wish to say in defence of my own amendment that I come from a locality where the farmers have not yet changed their system, but from which large quantities of butter are sent every year, being purchased by the merchants. I think I shall be quite within the mark in saying that at least 10,000 packages a year are sent out, coming from farmers, many of whom are making butter on exactly the same principle as that used by the creameries. And, as the price of butter is regulated by the export price, the effect of the distinction here proposed must be to lower the price 171J
of their butter in the market. For, dairy butter will be regarded as of an inferior quality, and this is against every farmer in the country making his own butter, though many of them make quite as good a quality as is made in the factory. The attention of the minister has been drawn to the fact that the effect of this wohld be that the butter from the farm would have to be stamped ' dairy butter.'


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: It does not force any one to stamp his butter at all. It only prohibits a producer of dairy butter from stamping his goods ' creamery butter.'


Thomas Simpson Sproule: That is just what I object to. The farmer is not allowed to stamp his butter in such a way as to get the best price, and why that should be thought necessary, I do not understand. The hon. minister says that we have attained celebrity for the butter we turn out, yet he says that a better price is obtained for the butter made at the Experimental Farm than that made in the creameries. I have the Auditor General's Report before me, I find that last year the Experimental Farm sold their best butter at 22 cents per pound, and their next quality at 20 cents per pound. Will the hon. gentleman tell me that the creameries do not realize a better figure than that ? To my own knowledge, several of them do. It is a serious interference with the rights of a farmer to prohibit him from stamping his butter ' creamery butter,' even though it is made by the most approved and modern method in a place of manufacture where they have ice and the best dairy appliances, and where they work upon exactly the same principles as is taught at the Experimental Farm. I see a good deal of wisdom in delay, because, no matter what you propose with regard to this point, there seems to be some object tion to it. I admit that the amendment I have proposed is open to some objection, but I do not see just now how to overcome it. At the same time, I think it is decidedly preferable to the clause of the Bill. I think that if this Bill were allowed to pass with its paternalism, it would stamp as inferior every pound of butter turned out by the farmers of my section. And I am disposed to oppose it. It will do a great injustice to these people, and it is on their behalf that I speak.


Robert Johnston: It seems to me that creamery bi tter should be defined so as to include butter made by means of the separator, as in the large factories. In our part of the country a good many people send milk to the factory in the summer time, but in the spring and fall they use their separators and make butter, which is called creamery butter, and which, as a matter of fact, is ns good as any made in the factories, if properly taken care of. I know farmers who fcave from twenty to

thirty cows who put their milk through the separator, make butter and do it up in one or two-pound packages, covered with paper as in the creameries, and it is sold on the market at just as good prices as that from the large creameries. Would it be fair to the people who have not facilities for getting to the factories, yet who have all the facilities that a factory can have and make as good an article, to compel them to sell their butter for less than that which is made in a creamery ? I think it would be an imposition on the farmers who are trying to make a good article and who are really turning out butter as good as that made in the factories. To make a mere arbitrary limit of fifty cows, would be unreasonable. Many people have not the means to keep fifty cows, but they may keep twenty-five or thirty, and they should have the same privileges as those who keep a larger number.


Mr. PUTTEE.: Before we leave this section of the Bill, would it not be ns well to have some explanation of subsection F, which reads :
' Renovated butter ' or 'process butter ' means any butter which has been melted, clarified or refined, and made to resemble butter.
Section 7 makes the manufacture of this butter illegal. I wish the minister would explain what is the intention and meaning of these two sections taken together. As I understand it, no foreign substance is added in making this process butter. Since the minister introduced his resolution in the House last week, I have had a communication from a fairly large produce firm in Winnipeg, who are making this kind of butter in the ordinary way of business. They take butter that is not good enough for the market and melt it down and remake it into butter, without-as I understand it- adding any foreign material. This seems to be an established business, and I am anxious to know whether the minister's Bill will outlaw that business in Winnipeg and elsewhere. Is that the meaning of the Act, and if so, what is the reason for it ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Renovated butter, or process butter, as it is here indifferently called, is a rather new product on this continent-certainly entirely new in Canada. In this process, butter, supposed to be of inferior quality, is melted until it is in the condition of oil. While in that condition, it is more or less skimmed, and afterwards plunged into cold water. When it is in the oily condition it is hot, and the process of cooling is made a sudden process for the purpose of getting it in what is called the granular form. It is then washed in milk or buttermilk, and treated very much as ordinary butter is treated in the churning process, and is made to resemble ordinary butter. So far as we know, there is no addition to it of any other matter. But the objection to it is that in Mr. JOHNSTON (Cardwell).
that heating process, which reduces it to a condition of oil, it destroys the essential ingredients of the butter fat which makes good butter, and the result is that when it is made up afterwards by the churning process into butter, it does not contain the essential characteristics of the butter fat which make a good and lasting quality of butter. For the moment, when it is made up, it might deceive even a fairly good expert, although there are some qualities in it which are decidedly lacking. But it has been found as a matter of fact that in consequence of the treatment which is has gone through in the melting process it will not keep as well, and is not a wholesome and palatable article of food. The result is that where this process butter has been largely distributed as butter and under the name of butter, it has tended to hurt the reputation of good butter marked in the same way as this is marked.
In the United States the manufacture of this process, or ready-made butter, has become very considerable. At first in that country there were no restrictions upon it, everybody was allowed to carry on the manufacture just as they liked. The manufacture of it, however, has assumed such proportions and resulted so disastrously to the butter trade of the country, that the United States Congress passed severe restrictive legislation requiring a license for its manufacture and a license for its use, where used in public places, such as hotels, also a license for its sale. They attempted in every way to get rid of the danger which it really brought to the butter interests of the country. At the present time its manufacture is only beginning in Canada. I cannot say positively, but so far as our information goes, there are only two or three places where it has actually been manufactured in this country. If we do not adopt the prohibitive clauses of this Bill, there is no doubt that in the near future the manufacture will expand largely in our country, and we will be face to face with the same difficulties which the people of the United States had to face, and which they were only partially able to overcome by their restrictive and licensing system. If we now, in this session of parliament, adopt the prohibition which this Bill proposes, we will be entirely free from the menace to our butter trade which the United States have not been able entirely to get rid of. I therefore believe this measure to be necessary in the interests of the dairying interests of Canada, so that not only abroad, but at home, our butter may be known as pure butter, made entirely from cream, from the fat or milk of cream, and without having been treated in a way to destroy the essential qualities of ' the fat out of which butter is made. People will say, no doubt, that this is still nothing but butter. It is really not butter under the definition of butter which is commonly accepted in the community at large. Butter

is made from butter fat which has never been melted, and which therefore retains in it certain characteristics which are destroyed by melting. This stuff is made from butter fat which has been melted, the melting process having destroyed certain characteristics and qualities in butter fat which are essential to its proper preservation in the form of butter. I venture to say that if we do not adopt the radical measure contained in this Bill now, we will be face to face with an accumulation of difficulties and dangers similar to those encountered in the United States, and that in the near future we will have to adopt severe restrictive measures which will be only half effective, whereas to-day we can adopt an absolutely effective measure which will accomplish the end desired of maintaining the integrity and good reputation of our dairy products.


Rufus Henry Pope: I congratulate the minister on the change of heart that has come over him since I first heard him discuss butter questions in this House, when we were considering a measure to prevent oleomargarine entering into this country. If I were as malicious as I was in those days, I would take this occasion to flay the hon. gentleman with his own speech and his own language. However, I have learned to be more kindly disposed towards him, and I will only take this opportunity of reminding him of past history. Now, the minister has not altogether satisfied me where the impurity conies in in this process or renovated butter. This is an article I have only heard about or read about, but, as I understand, it is pure butter fat, there is no other composition in it but butter fat, there is no animal fat in it other than butter fat. It is manufactured by people in various parts of this country from butter that is not suitable for table use until it is renovated. This butter is made over under a process by which it is absolutely purified and made clean of all Impurities, and is a perfectly healthy article, and its manufacture is a legitimate business. Of course, the man who makes butter in a creamery may object to that sort of competition. But if tills article is only pure butter fat, as I understand it to be, if there is nothing added to it, if it is simply renovated butter, butter fat taken in an imperfect condition and made palatable and suitable for human food. I do not see why we should prohibit it. We might brand it, we might name it, we might characterize it; but why a man should be punished for taking an impure article and making it more suitable for human food than it was when he found it, without putting any impurities into it, but taking impurities out of it, I do not understand. It does seem as though we were going a long ways to punish the man who invests his money in that business.


Mr. LENNOX.: I do not think it necessary for me to advance such arguments as
have been advanced by hon. gentlemen on this side of the House principally, who have studied this matter with a great deal of care. I am much in sympathy with those who oppose the Bill on the ground that it seems to cast an undue reflection upon the quality of dairy butter. I recognize that the farmer is the person to be first considered in dealing with this matter. It is right perhaps that those who manufacture butter upon a large scale in factories should be considered too, but the basis of this industry is the farmer and his interest should be first considered. After hearing the discussion this afternoon and the other day, it does not appear to me that this measure will, for the time being, at all events, be in the interest of the farmer. I think it will tend detrimentally to the farmer, I think it will be found to put" obstacles and difficulties in his way. There is another view of the matter which was presented by the hon. member for South Perth (Mr. Erb), and it is a view that I have ventured to present before in reference to the legislation in this House, which I ventured to suggest to the minister in introducing his. Seeds Bill a few days ago. I think you are too anxious to introduce legislation to guide the farmers. I think they have a good amount of common sense themselves. I believe they apprehend what it is they need in order to advance their interests. I believe they will progress very favourably if you leave them alone to a certain extent, and I cannot help thinking that this legislation which is attempted to be introduced by the hon. Minister of Agriculture is not in the interest of the farmer, and is but another illustration of that paternal system of government which the hon. member for South Perth (Mr. Erb) alluded to.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Mr. Chairman, it is almost six o'clock, but I will say a word in reference to what has been said by the hon. member who has just taken his seat (Mr. Lennox). I can only assure him that this Bill is in the interest of the farmers of whom he has spoken. Protection to the creamery industry is just ns much in the interest of the farmers as protection to what is called the dairy industry of this country. I suppose there are more dairy farmers taking their milk to creameries than there are making their milk into butter at home, and the product is greater from the factories than it is from the home dairies, but, still, even supposing that to be the case, nobody wishes that the one should be sacrificed in the interest of the other, and if I supposed that this Bill in any way sacrificed the interests of those farmers who do not take their milk to factories I would not advocate the adoption of its provisions. It is because I think it does secure their interests just as much as the interests of the others that I propose the provisions of this Bill. I will have to say a few words in regard to what the

lion, member for Compton (Mr. Pope) said and. Mr. Chairman, I will ask you to call it six o'clock.
At six o'clock, House took recess.
After Recess.
The committee resumed at eight o'clock.
On section 4,


John McGowan: What is the British standard for water in butter under the Food Adulteration Act.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Under a recent regulation, 16 per cent of water is the limit allowed without the butter being called adulterated.


Rufus Henry Pope: Does that include all the moisture there is in butter.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I do not believe there is any other moisture in butter except water.


John McGowan: Fifteen per cent would be all right.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Yes.


David Henderson: It seems to me that if we substitute the word ' moisture ' for ' water ' we will come nearer to what is intended. Some butter makers leave a certain amount of milk or cream in the butter which is very injurious inasmuch as the butter will the more readily sour, and in my opinion it would be better to exclude that than an undue quantity of water. I have thought this matter out. and I believe that if the word ' moisture ' were substituted for [DOT] water.' it would exclude everything of-that character. I move that the word ' moisture ' be substituted for the word ' water ' in the second line of this section.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I think that the hon. gentleman will change his mind on reflection. This means water by analysis. We have no standard by analysis of cream or of milk. Cream is a certain amount of water, a certain amount of fats and traces of various ingredients; milk is a certain amount of water, a certain amount of caseine, a certain amount of butter fat and so on. But the analysis as to the water shows water by itself. In practical analysis there is no such term as ' moisture,' but the term ' water ' is well understood as an element unless we go into extreme chemical analysis where the constituent parts of water are resolved into hydrogen and oxygen ; water is the element for all practical analytical purposes. After careful consideration and after the scientific analysis of a great many samples of butter, the authorities of England adopted 16 per cent of water as the limit which should be allowed. If we export to Great Britain butter which contains more than 16 per cent of water it


Sydney Arthur Fisher: would be condemned after analysis and it would be heralded to the world, not that Canadian butter contains so much water, but that it had been declared adulterated. Our competitors would make the most of that, and hence it is necessary that we should guard our trade against the exportation of butter wTbieh contains more than 16 per cent of water.


David Henderson: When butter is not properly washed there is a certain amount of milk or cream left in it which is much more injurious to that butter than is water.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Hear, hear.


David Henderson: I think that perhaps we should use some generic term that would cover not only the water in the butter, but also the milk or cream which should have been washed out of the butter in the making. 1 would be very glad to hear the opinion of a gentleman like my bon. friend from North Perth (Mr. Maclareu) who is an expert in matters of this kind.
Mr. MacLAREN (Perthl. I might explain that I am not a butter maker, but I think I would rather have water in butter than sour butter-milk. I know that whey in cheese is a very bad thing, and I suppose that butter-milk has the same effect on the flavour of butter. I would like to know from the minister whether up to the present we have had many complaints with regard to our butter exported to England having too much moisture in it?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: We bad an instauce not long ago in which it was declared that certain specimens of Canadian butter had been found to have been adulterated. When we followed that up we were led to believe that it was because there was too much water in it and we do not want that kind of thing to be repeated. It appears to me that when 16 per cent of water is found in Canadian butter, it is left there designedly for the purpose of trying to sell water for butter, and any person w-ho does that should be prevented from doing it under a penalty in the interests of our butter trade. Canadian butter such as we have in Canada will not contain 16 per cent of water unless there is an intention to leave as much water as possible in the butter. I say that advisedly with reference not only to creamery butter, but to dairy butter also.


Alexander Ferguson MacLaren: Was it dairy butter or creamery butter which the hon. minister had reference to as having had too much wTater in England ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I cannot say. It was a specimen of Canadian butter.


Ernest D'Israeli Smith: The minister stated the other evening that he had a num-

ber of tests made of different lots of butter, and be found that only one of tbe samples contained over 10 per cent of water. Were they all creamery samples, or were there samples also from a number of ordinary daries ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I stated that a large number of samples ^ad been collected and tested. In answer to the hon. member for Macdonald (Mr. Boyd),
I stated that the samples which had been discussed in the Committee of Agriculture as having been analysed on the Experimental Farm were all creamery butter, but there were a large number of other samples analysed which included dairy butter. I find, on further investigation, that there were 150 samples analysed at the office of the Dominion analyst, most of them dairy butter. The average percentage of water in all these samples was only 8-97. The average in twelve creamery samples which were amongst them was 9-39, showing that the creamery samples had more water in them than the dairy samples. The creamery samples analysed at the Experimental Farm, 105 in number, averaged from 12 to 121 percent of water. There was only one sample in the lot which contained more than 10 percent. Out of the 150 samples which were analysed by the Dominion analyst, there were two which contained over 10 per cent of water, and one of these at least was considered by the analyst to be adulterated. My hon. friend will therefore see that the statement I made with regard to the general analysis was absolutely correct, and it is proved pretty conclusively by this data that dairy butter generally contains less water than creamery butter, and therefore this provision implies no danger to the dairymen of the country.


Dilman Kinsey Erb: Might I ask the minister whether he is in a position to tell us whether the enactment passed in Great Britain to which he referred as fixing the standard of butter, contains the word ' moisture ' or the word ' water ? '


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: It contains the word ' water.'


Thomas Simpson Sproule: In view of file large number of analyses that have been made, and that very small percentage of samples found to contain water, it seems hardly worth while to pass a clause as this.


Mr. FRASER.: I think it will be an excellent thing for the farmers to know that such is the law; and, secondly; as it is the law in Great Britain, it will be an excellent thing, in selling our butter there, to know that we have the same law, and the people of Great Britain will feel that they are getting good butter. For these two reasons, I think the clause should pass.


Mr. McLAREN (Perth).: Is there not such a thing as having butter too dry ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Yes, nobody disputes that.


Alexander Ferguson MacLaren: I would like to read an extract from a speech made a short time ago by Prof. Robertson :
As to the amount of water in our butter, Canadian butter has one-seventh less water than that from Denmark. We want to keep our butter as near the line as the Englishman will pay twenty-three cents per pound for-and I say that because a dry butter is the poorest butter you have to eat.
So I think there should be -something iu this Bill to compel people not to have butter too dry as well as not to have it too wet.


Mr. BRODER.: Properly made butter will have no such percentage of water iu it as 10 per cent. Loose, flabby butter, that has no keeping qualities, might iiossibly have 16 per cent of water, but no properly made butter would have more than 8 per cent or 9 per cent, or perhaps in some, cases 10 per cent. The class of butter which the Bill proposes to deal with would scarcely be merchantable on the market. The price obtained for it would soon prevent farmers _ making it. You cannot compel people to' make good butter by Act of parliament, though you might prohibit them selling bad . butter. ' It seems to me that it would be better to strike at the quality of the butter in some other way than by designating the percentage of water that may be in it. For instance, people who leave a good deal of moisture in the butter are apt to leave a large quantity of other materials, such as butter-milk, and the Bill does not touch that at all.


Duncan Cameron Fraser: Section 5 strikes at that.


Andrew Broder: No. that has reference to process butter. The average farmer knows nothing about the percentage of water in the butter, and there ought to be some other way of striking at the poorer quality of butter. Perhaps the price would be the most effective way of getting at it. Section agreed to.
On section 7,


Rufus Henry Pope: I see no string reason why we should prohibit the manufacture in Canada of process butter. When we prohibit ' the importation, of course, we give a cer-5 tain amount of protection to our dairy industry, but as there is nothing injurious in process butter, I do not see why we should " prevent its manufacture. There are farm-i ers who, for one cause or another, manu

 facture butter not fit for export or home 1 consumption, but by the application of the 7 system known as process, this inferior and 5 tainted butter is purified and made palatable 5 and good food for the poorer classes in the * cities, and I see. therefore, no reason why we should prohibit its manufacture. That t it should be marked and sold for what it is, is quite right. No one can question the

propriety of causing it to be marked process butter. I have not had the opportunity of discussing this question very widely, but in any discussion which it has been 'possible for me to have with producers, consumers and manufacturers, I have not found any one who could give any good reason why we should not manufacture process butter in Canada and expose it for sale as such.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: 1 am sorry the hon. gentleman takes this position. He has a large farm and is well known as a dairyman. The position he takes is one which, I think, would be a great danger to the dairy interests of Canada. We have the experience of the United States to warn us. Some years ago we absolutely prohibited the manufacture in Canada of oleomargarine, butterine and other substitutes for butter and I do not think that any body to-day doubts the wisdom of that law. If, at that time, we had licensed the manufacture of oleomargarine and butterine, we would have to-day the same condition of affairs as exists in the United States. Every body who has studied the general dairy work of the world knows that one of the reasons why the United States butter products do not command good prices in the English market is because they have been monkeying with their dairy process. They have been treating it lightly. They have been trying to sail as near the wind as they could, and the result has been that they have sailed so near the wind that the ship of their dairv trade has been capsized, while ours has'sailed forward with favourable breezes to a successful passage and commanded a successful reception in the markets of the world. When we discover another menace to our dairy trade, we should treat it in the shine way. We should stop it at once and not allow it to assume proportions which will make it more difficult to deal with in the future. That has been the case with regard to this process or renovated butter in the United States. They have allowed it to grow until it has assumed great proportions and to-day the United States find that this process butter is seriously injuring their dairy interests.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Is it made out of anv-thing other than butter ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: No, not to my knowledge.
I stated before dinner what I knew about the process, and I do not think that I need to go into that again. I admit, for the purpose of my argument, that it is made out of nothing but butter, or butter oil-except salt; but no extraneous substance. Now the United States have been forced bv the conditions of their dairy trade, with" this article freely allowed to be manufactured in that country, to take action. They have


Rufus Henry Pope: taken the action they took with regard to oleomargarine and butterine; that is, to hedge the manufacturer about with restrictions. We did not do that with regard to oleomargarine and butterine; we took the course of absolutely forbidding their manufacture in this country. The reason that the United States could only restrict instead of prohibiting was that they had waited until the manufacture had assumed large proportions and had acquired vested rights and interests in their country which the legislatures could not ignore. It was only after a struggle of many, many years that the dairy farmers of the United States were able to force Congress to pass these restrictive measures with regard to oleomargarine and butterine, and, more lately, with regard to this process butter. The dairy farmers wanted to prohibit the manufacture of these articles; but, as I have said, the manufacture had assumed such large proportions that they were unable to attain that object and were obliged to be content with restrictions and licenses and the hedging about of the traffic, instead of its prohibition. We have been more fortunate with regard to oleomargarine and butterine, and I hope we shall be equally fortunate in our action with regard to process butter. Our experience with regard to oleomargarine and butterine has been extremely satisfactory, and I venture to hope that the House will immediately, without cavil and without dissent, take the same course with regard to this matter, and at once prohibit the manufacture of process butter in this country. I will go further and say that, judging from what I have heard and read with regard to the discussion of the question in the United States, the manufacture of process butter is just as great a menace to the true butter trade of the country as was the mauufacutre of oleomargarine'and butterine. The request to mark process butter ns process butter and allow it to go forth marked with the name of Canada, ns all butter from Canada must go forth, is a very insidious proposition. But the adoption of that course would tend to the destruction of our dairy trade. That process butter will go into the English market labelled as Canadian process butter ,if you like. But the consumers will not consider the difference between ordinary Canadian butter and Canadian process butter, but will confuse the two, and the discredit which will attach to Canadian process butter will affect the reputation of all our butter. In the United States, they require that skimmed cheese and filled cheese shall be marked as skimmed or filled cheese. But when it is sold in England, or elsewhere, it is known as American cheese. When a person gets a piece of that and eats it as American cheese, he is apt to say : ' This is poor stuff, and I do not want any more of it.' The next time he is offered even full-milk American cheese, he is likely to say :

11 tasted some American cheese the other day; I don't want any more.' The grocer may say : ' That was skimmed cheese, but this is full-milk cheese.' The customer will reply : ' X don't want to eat cheese from a country where they skim their milk to make cheese; I do not know what I am getting.' In Canada, there is no skim cheese, no oleomargarine or butterine, so that in the English market, when they And cheese or butter marked 'Canada,' they know that it is a pure article made from the full milk. As long ns that is the case, our products will stand in the high position they now occupy. But. if we allow anything like this process butter to be distributed it will not be very long before our dairy interest will suffer; and the reason for it, will be easy to understand.


William Findlay Maclean: I agree with a great deal of what the hon. minister (Hon. Mr. Fisher) has said. If we prevent the manufacture of this process butter there will be no market for bad butter, and it will have to rank as soap grease-


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: Rank butter.


William Findlay Maclean: Yes ; rank butter as soap grease. If we pass this law. there will be no encouragement to our farmers to make bad butter. The thing to do is to stop the making of bad butter, not to rectify it after it is made. Butter melted is not butter, and is not a suitable food product and ought not to be allowed to be sold in the markets of this country.
On section 9,
No person shall sell or offer, expose or have ill his possession for sale, any butter contained in any box, package or wrapper upon which the word ' creamery,' or any combination of words which includes the word ' creamery,' is branded or marked, unless the butter contained in the box, package or wrapper consists wholly of creamery butter manufactured at one place.


Ernest D'Israeli Smith: I do not find in this Bill anything providing that the name of the factory shall appear upon the package. That seems to me very important. for if the name does not appear, it will not be possible to trace packages of butter not made in accordance with the Act, back to their source, and there will be no means of bringing to task those who seek to evade the Act. I would suggest that the following words be added at the end of this section ; ' And is marked in a plain and indelible manner with the name and address of the creamery where made.' This provision has betn found necessary in the Fruit Marks Act, and I see the hon. minister has made provision for it in the Seeds Control Act. It seems equally necessary in this case.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: My hon. friend (Mr. Smith, Wentworth) has brought up a question which was very thoroughly discussed in this House a few years ago, when the Act was passed for the registration of creameries. That Act was designed to enable creameries to be registered and have a number which could be put upon packages sent out, the number being a registered trade mark under provisions for that purpose. The proposition now put forward was thoroughly discussed, not only in the House, but in the dairy association meetings throughout the length and breadth of the country. The trade and the people who were engaged in the creamery work objected to that provision of the Bill, and it was left out when the Bill was made law. I am not aware that any change of mind has come to the people interested in the trade. The hon. gentleman has referred to several other Bills to which that provision applies. But in the case of these Bills, as in the case of the Creamery Registration Bill, the provisions were discussed by the people interested and the Bills were made in accordance with the decision come to. In this case we follow the opinion expressed in the dairy association.


Ernest D'Israeli Smith: There may have been other reasons why the creamery-men did not want their name upon the packages. But really I do not see how it is possible that any creamery should be ashamed, so ashamed of their package that they would not be willing to have their name branded upon the package. It is the only means possible of carrying out the Act effectively.
On section 10,
Every person who, by himself or through tho agency of another person, violates any of the provisions of this Act, shall, for each offence, upon summary conviction, be liable to a fine not exceeding four hundred dollars, and not loss than ten dollars, together with the costs of prosecution, and, in default of payment of such fine and costs, shall be liable to imprisonment, with or without hard labour, for a term not exceeding three months, unless such fine and the costs of enforcing it are sooner paid.


Duncan Cameron Fraser: Does not the minister think that the maximum of $400 is too great-a difference between $10 and $400. A person might do that innocently in the first instance. I would be in favour of a fair fine. But the minister will see that that fine may be made $400 for the first offence as well as for the second.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: The idea of putting the maximum at that figure is because violations of some provisions of this Act are most serious offences and must be deliberate and intentional, while other offences are comparatively trifling. Therefore, a wide margin had to be left between the maximum and the minimum. The judge will take these cases into consideration.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: You had better make the larger penalty apply to the manufacture

of process butter, and the smaller apply to the farmer who might be running what he required as a private creamery. You say ' every person who, by himself or through the agency of another person, violates any of the provisions of this Act' may be fined from $10 to $400. That seems an awful penalty to impose upon an individual who merely puts the word ' creamery ' upon his butter which he regarded as equal in every respect to creamery butter, and as having been manufactured in the same way.


Duncan Cameron Fraser: I do not think it is fair that the first fine may be as large as the second. X believe in gradation of punishment. For example, I would put the high fine on any person who violated sections 5 and 0, who continues deliberately to mix acid, alkali, chemical or any other substance with his butter. I have seen acts of this kind where spite or something else led to complaints, and the judge had been induced to impose the fine.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: It would be left to the discretion of the magistrate to fix the fine. He would take all these things into consideration.


Duncan Cameron Fraser: He will keep within the four corners of the statute, if he is inclined to be hard.
On section 11,


David Henderson: I would like to ask tlie minister with reference to these words ' any person charged with the enforcement of this Act.' I presume that has reference to inspectors that will be appointed under the Act to see that its provisions are carried out. Is it the intention to have an inspector in every municipality, or how many inspectors will he have throughout the country for the purpose of enforcing the provisions of this Act ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: It is not the intention of the department to appoint any inspectors, except perhaps to give power under this Act to certain officers now in the department to take steps in regard to it.
On section 13,
No appeal shall lie from a conviction under this Act except to a superior, county, circuit or district court, or the court of the sessions of the peace having jurisdiction where the conviction was had ; and such appeal shall be brought, notice of appeal in writing given, recognizance entered into, or deposit made within ten days after the date of conviction ; and such trial shall be heard, tried, adjudicated upon and decided, without the intervention of a jury, at such time and place as the court, or judge hearing the trial appoints, within thirty days from the date of conviction, unless the said court or judge extends the time for hearing and decision beyond such thirty days ; and in all other respects not provided for in this Act the procedure under part lviii of the Criminal Code, 1892, shall, so far as applicable, apply.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: 


Duncan Cameron Fraser: You provide that a trial shall be heard without the intervention of a jury at such time and place as the court or judge may appoint, within thirty days from the date of conviction, unless the said court or judge extends the time. Why is it thirty days ? Why put the party to the trouble of getting an order from the judge to extend the time until the court happens to meet ? Why should it not be the next sitting of the court ? If the judge does not come there, you have got to get an order to extend the time.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: The legal clauses of this Act were copied from other Acts of a similar character. I do not see any particular objection, but I believe thirty days is the time limit given in such cases. I think the judge could extend the time.


Duncan Cameron Fraser: No doubt about that, but would it not be better to have it until the next term of court ? Because, otherwise the party appealing must go to the judge and get an extension until the court meets. What charm is there about thirty days, that the ease must be tried within thirty days ? You are putting the appellant to the trouble of getting a judge's order to carry it on until the next term of the court.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I have no objection to that change if the legal fraternity consider it is better. I want to make the proceeding as easy as possible for the litigant.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section^ 15,
The Governor in Council may make such regulations as he considers necessary in order to secure the efficient enforcement and operation of this Act ; and may by such regulations impose penalties not exceeding fifty dollars on any person offending against them ; and the regulations so made shall be in force from the date of their publication in the 1 Canada Gazette,' or from such other date as is specified in the proclamation in that behalf ; and the violation of any such regulation shall be deemed an offence against this Act and punishable as such.
Duncan Cameron Fraser: I do not understand about this $50 fine. What is that imposed for ? You have already made provision for imposing fines.	.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: These fines are fines to be imposed against persons offending against the regulations.


Duncan Cameron Fraser: But the regulations certainly contain nothing that is not in the Bill. They will be only for the efficient enforcement of the Act. Why is a fine of $50 put here when we have imposed fines for the violation of the Act ? What penalty would there be for offending against them ?


Rufus Henry Pope: You have provided punishments in section 11.


Duncan Cameron Fraser: Yes, and you are imposing this penalty in addition as a punishment for offending against something that is not in the Act. X do not think the Governor in Council should have the power.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: This section empowers the Governor in Council to pass regulations for the proper enforcement of the Act. These regulations must be entirely in consonance with the provisions of the Act, but still they might provide certain things which the Act does not specifically provide.


Duncan Cameron Fraser: Not by way of penalties. This provides a penalty for the violation of these regulations which is not specifically provided in the Act. This section provides a penalty for breaking the regulations. Otherwise there would be no penalty for breaking the regulations but only for breaking the specific provisions of the Act.


George Taylor: Is it the intention of the government to employ a staff of officers for the enforcement of this Act ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: No, there is no intention to appoint any officers who are not in the employ of the de partment. The intention is to authorize certain officers who are now in the dairy branch of the department to deal with the enforcement of the Act.


George Taylor: I presume that under section 15. if the hon. gentleman deems it necessary, he can appoint an officer or two. It looks to me as if the Bill was simply for the purpose of making places for a few more officers.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: That is not the intention.
On section 3, subsection (a),
Mr. I'OPE. Have we discovered anything that would assist in solving the difficulty there ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: There was some discussion in regard to this and I think probably the sense of the committee will be that this subsection had better be adopted in the form in which it is at present. There has certainly been no substitute proposed which would meet the views of all.


Alexander Ferguson MacLaren: Would it be safe to reduce the number to twenty-five or thirty cows, particularly where there are separators ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I would not like to assume responsibility for that.
/Mr. AVERY. Mr. Chairman, I think it would be an injustice to the farmers of the country to leave the Bill as it is at the present time. There are many farmers having fifteen or twenty cows making just as
good butter as those who have fifty cows.
I think it is an imposition on those people who have not fifty cows and who are trying to do as well as those who have fifty.


David Henderson: The matter can be decided in a minute by the chairman simply putting to the committee the amendment which I moved.


Rufus Henry Pope: A legitimate appeal was made to the hon. minister on behalf of a class of the community 'which is entitled to be considered. It would be well to follow up the efforts made by the hon. gentleman's department and by the provincial governments to encourage the use of a better system, in fact of the most approved system of buttermaking. All the larger farmers have adopted that system. Another circumstance which is very encouraging is that our farmers are beginning to send their sons and daughters to agricultural schools like the Guelph Agricultural College, where they are being equipped and qualified to conduct as good dairies at home as can be conducted oil the co-operative plan. I think it should be our ambition to do all we can to encourage these home dairies because it is leading in the direction of a better class of farming. After the young people have qualified themselves for that I think it is a hardship that we should pass anything in this or any other Bill that in any way reflects upon the results of their labours' or discourages the better part of dairying which isv being taken up to quite an extent. In the section of country from which I come, there has been a marked improvement in this direction. I have lost some of the best patrons of my creamery, whose sons have gone to Guelph and equipped themselves for manufacturing butter at home. I think we should encourage that. If we can reduce the number of cows I think it would be acceptable to the committee, and I do not believe we would in any way violate the purpose of the Bill or the desire of the hon. minister. We quite appreciate that he believes himself to be in a delicate position in regard to the necessity of protecting as far as possible the quality of our butter produced for the export trade, and while I recognize that I think we can agree in placing the number of cows at twenty or twenty-five, which would prove satisfactory.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: The question -was discussed pretty well and I allowed the subsection to stand for further consideration. There really was no proposition put before the committee which seemed to suit hon. members generally. My hon. friend (Mr. Pope) himself, said that he was doubtful as to his original proposition to reduce the number to twentydive. The hon. member for Halton (Mr Henderson) proposes twenty-five and now another hon. gentleman gets up and says it ought to be fifteen or rwenty. Of course, these are difficult propositions which show that what-

ever the number chosen should be, there will be some objection and some possible idea that a hardship will arise in some individual instances. The object is to see that the word ' creamery ' should not be put on butter which is not made on such a large scale as to bring about the most favourable conditions. If we lower this standard to fifteen or twenty cows we might as well wipe out the difference between dairy and creamery butter altogether.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Alexander Ferguson MacLaren: In Western Canada there are hundreds of small dairies where they have only twenty or thirty cows and where they have been stamping their butter as ' creamery' for many years. Do not you think that it would be an injustice to legislate so as to prevent those people from carrying on their industry as they have been accustomed to ?


Mr. SHERRITT.: How will you establish the fact that there will be not less than fifty cows ?
Hon. Mr. ROSS (Victoria, N.S.) Take a census.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: In the case of any prosecution under the Act that would have to be proved in the ordinary way.


David Henderson: The hon. gentleman from Middlesex (Mr. Gilmour) has given his opinion as the result of forty years experience that in the language of butter makers, a cow means an animal that will produce 3,000 pounds of milk in a year. There is a marked difference between cows, because one animal may give 3,000 pounds and another 7.000 pounds of milk in a year. A good deal depends on what interpretation you are going to put on that word, and we should have the opinion of the Minister of Agriculture as to what his intention is, and how he thinks the Act will be read when it becomes law.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: The intention is to count the number of heads of cattle. They may have the idea of 3,000 pounds of milk being the product of a cow in one part of the country and it may be totally different in another part of the country, but the number of heads can be easily counted.
Amendment (Mr. Henderson) negatived. Amendment (Mr. Sproule) negatived.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Bill reported.

[Stage Direction]
The MINISTER OF FINANCE (Hon W.
S. Fielding) moved that the House go into Committee of Supply.
['I do not know of any supplementaries in my department on these items.\nSome resolutions reported.']
Sydney Arthur Fisher: j


Rufus Henry Pope: This afternoon the leader of the opposition called the attention of the government to the purchase by the British authorities of a large number of cattle in the United States for the restocking of Boer farms in South Africa. The Minister of Agriculture replied that a certain amount of correspondence had taken place between this government and Lord Strathcona and that certain representations had been made. We, upon this side of the House, and many people outside of the House, feel that this is so important a matter that it should have received more attention from the government, and to emphasize that fact I' shall conclude with a motion. Now, Sir, we have heard a great deal on both sides of the water about preferential tariffs, and certain other things that will bring the colonies and the mother country more closely together. We believe there should be something more than sympathy, something more than a deep, loyal, patriotic feeling on the part of the colonies for the motherland, and on the part of the motherland for the colonies. I know of no better way to emphasize that desire than by the government of England, when it has an opportunity of doing business with the outside world, making an effort at least to do business with British colonies rather than with foreign nations. We have only one way of presenting our case before the British government or the British parliament, and that is through the government of our own country. After the splendid position Canada obtained in the British mind, after the close of the war in South Africa, as a result of the efforts Canada made on that occasion to emphasize her desire to maintain the British empire in its integrity, we cannot but feel that if the hon. Minister of Agriculture and the government to which he belongs had put forth a proper effort we should have had some practical results, such as the purchase of these animals in Canada instead of in the country to the south of us. The hon. gentleman told us this afternoon that he had not even heard of this transaction. We remember a year or two ago when another important matter, the purchase of meat supplies for the British army, was before us, the hon. Minister of Agriculture confessed in this House that he had not heard of it. Well, we know that the hon. minister is not deaf, that it is possible for him to hear; we know that he is not illiterate, that he reads; we know that he is entrusted with an important department of the government; and yet it is strange that within gunshot of where we are now sitting, Major Maude, the agent of the British government in this matter, was living day in and day out; and the Minister of Agriculture and the goveriflnent (o which he belongs know nothing whatever of the purchase of this stock. I do not deny it. I am bound to accept the words of tile lion, gentleman, and I do accept them to the full-

est extent; but it is surprising to say the least. We find that this steamer, the ' At-lanteau,' is at Montreal, loading 2,000 tons of hay, and that Mr. Kirtaw, of New York, their representative in the United States, is superintending the shipment. Can it he possible that this has not been known to the lion. Minister of Agriculture ? We all remember what great credit was claimed for the Minister of Agriculture and his colleagues when they changed the regulations between this country and the United States, and claimed that they had thereby opened up a market for our stock. We remember how the flag again went up when they .entered into negotiations with regard to the importation of diseased cattle, and how we were told that the prompt action of the Minister of Agriculture had saved this country. If those were matters of importance, surely au opportunity like this, which was heralded throughout this country months ago, should have reasonably called for a much greater effort than the hon. gentleman seems to have put forth. There could not have been a more opportune time than this very year, when every section of the country from which the hon. gentleman conies has been suffering from a severe drought. We know that our hay crop is not going to be more than 50 per cent of what it ought to be, and cattle are very cheap-just the kind that are best adapted for South Africa-better than the cattle of Texas or other southern states, where the cattle are poorly bred. There are thousands of cattle in our country seeking a market, and surely the lion. Minister of Agriculture and his colleagues could have afforded sufficient time to have urged on the gentleman who represents Great Britain in this matter, Major Maude, the value of our cattle, and thus have secured some relief for the people who have been suffering in the eastern part of ,tlie country. The hon. gentleman says he has not heard that there has been any exportation of cattle from this country. I think that under these circumstances we are justified in finding fault with the hon. gentleman and the government for neglect. True, he has been basking in the sunny climate of Japan, enjoying himself for weeks and weeks; but that was his desire. He went there, I presume, with the idea of doing good to Canada. But I expect that when the time arrives, it will turn out to be like his trip to England, where he was present when the negotiations were going on for the sale of army meat, and yet had not heard anything about it. So, when we come to find that the United States or some other country is getting the advantage of us in Japan, I suppose we shall find that the hon. gentleman -has not heard of it, just as on this occasion he has not heard of the thousands of head of cattle tljjit are being exported to South Africa to the great advantage of the people to the south of us.
It is not my intention to speak longer on this matter; I do not think it is necessary. I have drawn the attention of this House to the fact that the government have taken very little means to urge on the British authorities the great advantage it would be to this country to provide cattle for shipment to South Africa, and to the confession which the hon. minister made this afternoon, that he did not know anything about this matter, though on one occasion he had taken sufficient interest in it to communicate with Lord Stratlicona. Perhaps lie has had one communication, or he may have had a dozen, with Lord Strathcona; but he did not follow the matter up. It would have been more important, if the hon. minister had heard anything about it, to have gone to England himself rather than to Japan.
No doubt the hon. gentleman was an attractive personality when in Japan, but we would have been inclined to look with indulgence on his holiday there if he had done something for Canada. Had he obtained for the province of Quebec, and particularly the eastern section of that province, the material advantage which might have been obtained had proper efforts been made to secure for us the restocking of the Boer farms, we would not have concerned ourselves about that hon. gentleman's oriental experiences ; but I trust that now that I have brought this matter to the attention of the House in the shape of an amendment to Supply, the government will lose no delay in communicating with Major Maud, who represents the imperial authorities in this country, and in taking every possible step to secure to our country the supplying of the cattle required. In the newspaper article describing this matter, .it was said that these cattle are selected very carefully, that many are called but few qre chosen. I have no doubt, from what I know of the cattle of Mexico and the south, that very few will be chosen. I do not know of any part of the world where you will get a more undesirable breed of cattle for the foundation of a dairy stock than in Mexico, Texas and the southern part of this continent. They have no good dairy stock. Their cattle are ill-bred animals, more or less filled with disease. But in this country we have just the quality required. The increase in the business of dairying has caused a wonderful increase in the breeding of dairy cattle so that our farmers in the eastern provinces have a large amount of dairy cattle on hand, which they cannot send out to their ranches in the west where they require cattle for the beef market, and which would be admirably suited for restocking the farms in South Africa, and could be had at very moderate prices.
I beg therefore to move that all the words after ' That ' be struck out, and the following substituted :

This House regrets that the government have not taken more active measures for the purpose of protecting the interests of Canadian farmers and cattle dealers in connection with the purchase by the imperial government of cattle required for restocking the farmers in South Africa.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE (Hon. Sydney Fisher).: 
Rufus Henry Pope: plete and thorough justification of the position of the government and a lack of justification on the part of the hon. gentleman in moving this resolution on a question on which he knows nothing and concerning which he denies the government the opportunity of stating the facts. Under these circumstances I must ask the House to vote down the resolution.


David Henderson: I only intend to refer for a few minutes to the matter which has been brought to the attention . of the House by my hon. friend from Com-toil- (Mr. Pope). I do not think it requires many words to show that the government has been derelict in its duty in not making a greater effort to secure for the stock raisers of this country that market so recently opened up. We have been told by the lion. Minister of Agriculture that the government sent remonstrances to England through Lord Strathcona. Does the hon. gentleman mean to say that these remonstrances had so little weight that at present we find the agents of the British government in the United States buying cattle fpr export to South Africa, instead of meeting the wishes of the Canadian government which has done so much for Great Britain in the way of preference. Does he mean to tell us that after all these remonstrances, made, as he has told us, through the proper channel, the British government has quitely ignored them. Surely the influence of this government is much less indeed than any one would have expected.
The Minister of Agriculture and his colleagues have, time and again, boasted of what the government have done in the way of searching out new markets for the people of this country. I must confess that what we find now reported in the press- and there is every reason to believe it is absolutely correct-is not at all in keeping with the representations made by the government when they told the people how much interested they were in providing new markets for them, told them of their efforts and of the results those efforts would bring, above what had been secured by those who preceded them in the government of the Dominion. Now, one word with reference to the article itself and the representations it has made. We are told that the cattle are of a high class. Surely, the hon. gentleman will not contend for a moment that the people of the United States can furnish a higher class of cattle than the Dominion of Canada can. I have always understood that the people of the United States come to Canada to get their high-class cattle, and I believe there is a very large trade carried on by Canada in high-class cattle to be sent to the United States. Yet we find that the people of Great Britain are so ill-informed on this question that when they wish to secure high-class cattle for South Africa, Instead

of coming to Canada, where the Americans buy their best stock, they go to the United States whose people are purchasers from Canada. We are told that good prices are being paid. That is just the kind of market the Canadians wanted for their cattle, a market where good prices are paid. Yet, the government have allowed this market to slip out of their hands, I will not say without remonstrance, but without effectual remonstrance. Apparently, they have not been listened to. What is the matter witli Great Britain that, after having received the privilege of our market under a 33J per cent preference, they have nothing to give irs in return of rather they treat us with contempt "! We are told that the southern cattle dealers are reaping a harvest. That is very nice indeed. We ought to be reaping a harvest. The interest of the British government in these cattle purchases are being looked after by whom ? Not by Americans, but by a paid official of this government, a man who is paid his salary by the people of this country. He is actually engaged to-day in assisting the' British government to secure cattle in the United States to send to South Africa, and he is doing that whilst he is receiving his salary out of the coffers of the Dominion of Canada. I say we do not want any such officials. We ought to have men more loyal to the Dominion of Canada than to engage in any such transaction. I do not think it speaks well for Major Maude to be mixed up in this transaction in this way. I think that when he was asked by the British government to take charge of the purchase of cattle in the United States for South Africa, he should have said that, being an officer of the Dominion of Canada he thought it his duty to uphold the interest of the people of Canada rather than those of the people of tiie United States. I do not desire to say more. I think this is a lesson to us to be careful in the future what preferences we give to the mother country if, when an opportunity comes for an advantage to be afforded the people of Canada, we are to be treated in this manner which I might almost characterize as contemptuous.


Mr. SEYMOUR E. GOURLEY (Colchester).: Mr. Speaker, I think that Canada little deserves this humiliation-for I regard it, and the people of Canada will regard it, as nothing less than a humiliation. This great colony of Canada, if reports be true, has been feted in England for three or four years past on great public occasions. Yet, when there is any business that can be turned in the direction of Canada, unfortunately for us, there seems to be such incompetence either on this side of the Atlantic or on the other side, that the interests of Canada are sacrificed on every occasion. The remarks of the Minister of Agriculture, I think, shows the reason for the whole misunderstanding. Canada, he
says, was the best field in which to buy that stock. He says that the Minister of Agriculture-with whom I have no quarrel up to the present time-said that Canada was the best field. That was the representation he made to the British government. Is that any representation to make to the stupid and incompetent people in the offices in England ? I understood that we were living the strenuous life on this continent, especially in our politics.
If the Minister of Agriculture had led the strenuous life when he was dealing with this government at home, he would not have used only that gentle language, which, to my mind, invited the refusal that the British government returned to his request. He should know that our great trouble in dealing with the British government for the last seventy or eighty years has been that they have neglected every interest of Canada-they have neglected every colonial interest-until within the last five or ten years. The colonial offices in England and all the high offices there are filled with men who cared nothing about the colony until a few years ago, and are loath to take up the new doctrine of colonial ascendency. That being the case, the lion. Minister of Agriculture, who has visited England, ought to have known of this carelessness on the part of the government service of England with regard to the colonies-barring Mr. Joseph Chamberlain and a few of the great imperial-minded men who have recently come forward in the public life of that country. Fifty years ago, when the history of Canada could have been changed, when the greatness of Canada could have been made to run in parallel lines with the greatness of the United States, we were neglected by the government of England, and we were neglected by the government of Canada-because I am persuaded that if the govern-menj of Canada had led the people here to more strenuous maintenance of their position, if they had led the people to be more dignified in their political life and to demand recognition from England of the status of this great colony, we should not have been in the position we are in to-day. And now when we hear so much about the imperial feeling of England all this should be changed. I am an imperialist ; I honour the traditions of the empire, and I can stand here on this occasion and offer the criticism I offer free from any charge of seeking to detract in any way from the greatness of the empire. I therefore, am in a position to charge against the Minister of Agriculture and the cabinet the absolute neglect of the public interest of this great country. Why did you not talk business to these tu-penny-ha'penny fellows over there ? After sending them a mild and polite notice that you desired them to look after the interests of Canada, why did you not set the cable to work to tell them that Canada was not in a position to be neglected, that we

hold the key to the British empire ? I can usderstand how one of these officials in England felt when the Minister of Agriculture wrote that-I was going to say disgracefully, cowardly, message, and it was a cowardly message to send to these people in England. It was all right enough to begin with ; there is nothing like opening negotiations with politeness. But when their answer was received the wires under the ocean should have been kept hot with indignant messages from the government of Canada, to let the people over there know that the day was past when a few little civil servants in England could neglect the interest of this great country.
The government of this country should be told that the hour is past, this government should tell the government of England that the hour is past, when, if Canada speaks and requests the attention of the government of England to our great interests, a few petty officials in Downing street can turn a deaf ear to our request. Why, Sir, I can pick out mechanics in the streets of Ottawa who would make more intelligent cabinet ministers than those who now run the English government. Yes, Sir, we must understand in this country that we occupy a much superior position to the public men in England. The members of this House of Commons are infinitely more intelligent on the general affairs of the empire than the aggregation composing the House of Commons in England ; and the cabinet of Canada ought to occupy a prouder position than the imperial cabinet, because we have a wider outlook upon the affairs of the empire. Before a man could become a cabinet minister or a member of the English House of Commons, he should be brought to Canada and kept here for five years. He is not lit to administer the affairs of the empire until he has breathed the atmosphere of this great colony, until he has breathed the spirit of Liberalism, the high and dauntless courage Jhat every man breathes who lives in this splendid country.
Now, Mr. Chairman, I am persuaded that the government of this country is to blame for the whole thing. Because, being the government, and knowing the imperial sentiment that prevails, why did they not say to the government of England :	You are
asking us to give you battleships, you are asking us to help maintain your lleets, and you must do your duty by us? I say that public opinion in this country is ripe for that,
I am ripe for that, because I do not wish to be a part of the empire unless I hear my proportion of its responsibilities ; and when I bear my proportion of its responsibilities I want to be able to charge any official over there, whether he stands on the steps of the throne, or sits in the House of Commons, I want to talk to him from the same level and the same platform, and I can only do that when I pay my share of the cost of the empire. Now, Sir, I want to


Seymour Eugene Gourley: say to this government, I want to say to these stupid little jackasses in London, that the colonial empire could have been dominant over the whole earth, the colonial empire could have been greater than a 11 the nations of the earth, if these little fellows in England had been big enough to look over the whole world, if they had had among them ten or fifteen men like Joseph Chamberlain fifteen years ago. What would have been the position of South Africa, of Canada to-day ? Why, we would have filled the eyes of the world. But because Joseph Chamberlain cannot infuse a little of his own spirit into the rest of the cabinet of England, and into the civil service of that country, we occupy the humiliating position that we do to-day. When this government found that men so small were running the government in England, why did they not instruct Lord Strathcona to send an ultimatum to the English government telling them that if they want us in Canada to be loyal, to be true to the empire, if they want us to give them battleships, and to contribute to the permanency and glory of the empire, they must stand up and look after the rights of Canada, instead of looking after the rights of the Yankees across the way. This is the humiliation to the people of Canada beyond all compare, that Englishmen should think that there is only one country on this continent, and that is the United States, that Canada is an insignificant country, and that the United States contains and controls all the agricultural resources of this continent. That is a monstrous thing. Why, even the people of the United States themselves, I am told, have erected a line against the Texas fever. Why, the people of the United States will not allow these little scrub cattle from Texas to come beyond a certain line, they will not allow them to come up to Massachusetts or to Illinois, they have erected a line beyond which the Texas steers cannot come. They would have to be shipped out of Galveston if they were brought up north. Yet the British government will be. permitted to go into that pest-ridden and fever-ridden country and buy their cattle, to the insult of this country.
I charge upon the Minister of Agriculture an absolute lack of his duty. Why did he not summon parliament, if necessary, at once ? When he saw this insult was perpetrated upon us, why was not the Governor General interviewed and requested to inform the English government that the time had passed when they could play this game upon Canada any longer ?
Now, I am speaking for imperial unity, and I believe imperial unity could be brought about by telling English statesmen that they have got to control the public men of that country and their civil servants, and not permit them to insult the Canadian government. I am surprised that the Minister of Finance should permit himself to be so insulted. That is not the way

of the true Nova Scotian, to permit himself to be insulted by a lot of those little fellows over in England. Why did not the cabinet meet and telegraph a protest : We are the government of Canada, and we don't propose that Major Maude, or any other officer is going to insult this government. It is a direct attack upon the dignity of the cabinet of Canada. I am surprised that the Minister of Finance did not at once take some means of resenting the insult put upon them by the British government, by informing the British government that if they wanted imperial feeling to exist in Canada, they must treat this country with respect. We are not to be subjected to eternal insult. The colonies have been subjected to insult for the last fifty years, and still we have been loyal and faithful to the empire's interests. But the time has gone by when we will stand it any longer. Since I have been in this parliament, I have endeavoured to awaken Canadian pride. Surely we who are descendants of an undaunted race, a race who dared all the dangers of a new country, surely that dauntless French race with which we are combined, surely these two races, we who are the greatest representatives of the human race, ought not in Canada, after enduring the toils we have endured to make Canada great, to permit any longer the affairs of this country to be run by those little men over in England. True, they do not represent the English people, because, as a rule, the cabinet of England, for the last fifty years has represented no body but the little tu'penny ha'penny men who happen to get into the cabinet by some chance or accident. Recollect, I always separate the English people from the English public men. The public men of England for the past sixty years have never truly represented the feeling of the English people. The people were always splendid and strong, but their cabinet ministers, like Gladstone and Salisbury, have permitted that Empire to be insulted by evefy Yankee, and Frenchman, and German whenever they wished, until the time came when it was dangerous for a man that had spirit to pick up his paper in the morning for fear he might read that some fresh insult had been heaped upon the British empire, and there was nobody to protest. Now, Mr. Chairman, I think the Minister of Agriculture ought to resign at once. He ought to resign on two grounds, first, to preserve his own self-respect, and as a protest against the insult that has been put upon this country by the English government; and secondly, in deference to the wishes of the people of Canada, who desire to see a stronger and more masterful minister in that de-jiartment to deal with our public affairs.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I am sure that the 645,000 farmers of Canada will be surprised to learn what is taking 172
place in and around Ottawa, when they find that the Minister of Agriculture is wholly unaware of a* matter in which they are so vitally interested. He seems to be a true Rip Van Winkle. Last year we had a similar question of great interest to the farmers of the west, in the beef contract. These contracts would have been most valuable for the farmers of the west and the farmers of Canada generally. He knew nothing about it. The business had been carried on in England. We were vitally interested in it, we might have taken advantage of it but we did not because the hon. Minister of Agriculture was practically asleep. Another very interesting item of information comes to our knowledge that practically one of the officials from Ottawa is engaged in a foreign country buying large numbers of cattle to restock the farms of South Africa when these cattle might as well have been purchased in Canada if proper representations had been made to the mother country and backed up by an efficient government. Where was our Minister of Agriculture ? He was away in China . and Japan hunting up markets and allowing the market right at home to slip away from him without any effort to secure it for the farmers of this country. He was away studying the Chinese. He can tell us all about the Geisha girls but he cannot tell us about the cattle purchased in the United States to be sent to South Africa. He is a valuable farmer for the people of Canada. Now, he comes forward and expresses surprise that this motion should be sprung upon the House. He even expressed surprise that such a motion should be moved. Will this not be a matter of great surprise to the farmers of Canada, and will they not regret that the government knowing of what is taking place around them in what the farmers of Canada are so vitally interested ? It certainly will be a matter of great surprise. He had never seen, ha said, a more unreasonable proposition submitted to this House than to say that we regretted what had occurred. Does he not regret it, and will the farmers of Canada not regret it, that stronger representations, had not been made, because we have known it to be a fact that if proper representations were made to the imperial government in regard to anything in which Canada was vitally interested, where they could give assistance to Canada, if these representations were properly backed up, they have endeavoured to meet our views as far as possible ? IVe have many instances of this and on no occasion have our efforts failed where such representations have been made as might have been made in this case. It is said that Canada was the very best field for the purchase of this kind of stock. I have no doubt of that whatever. England only requires to know that. I think that England treats Canada in a much more friendly way than



she treats any foreign country, and she dees this because Canada is her best colony. What is taking place in England from month to month is the best evidence of it. It is brought to our notice in a thousand different ways ; therefore, we are justified in coming to the conclusion that if there had been proper information in England, if proper representation had been made, and if they had been intelligently made and backed up by such force as the government could and should command, there is no doubt but that regard would have been paid to them, that there would have been some evidence of it to-day, and that farmers of Canada would have been benefiting by it at the present time. What do we want ? We want better markets. What was the lion. Minister of Agriculture doing in China and Japan for three or four months ? He was trying to get better markets and yet a market right at home is allowed to go and no attention is paid to it, though it is the best market in the world by our most important products and the most desirable market for the largest class of people in our country. Yet the government know nothing about it, pay no attention to it, but utterly disregard it. I have only to say that I am quite sure that this is another evidence that will bring it home to the farmers of Canada what an incompetent Minister of Agriculture they have. He is the steward of the people of Canada. How has he managed that stewardship ? Has he managed it in the interest of the farmers ? It must be evident to all that he is looking after his own interests rather than the interests of the farmers. He is travelling all over the country every year, he can tell us what has taken place in every part of the world, but he knows nothiDg of what is taking place right around him in Ottawa, and as regards the farmers of Canada, he knows very little. He is asleep when it comes to looking after the interests of Canada, but he seems to be well informed as to what is taking place in other parts of the world. I am satisfied that the farmers will regret and will be inclined to censure the hon. Minister of Agriculture aqd the government for their failure to make proper representations on this subject, and I do not think we are going too far to-night when we express the great regret that we feel that stronger representations have not been made, and which, if made, would undoubtedly have resulted in securing to the farmers of Canada an important market that has been enjoyed by the people of the United States on account of the carelessness, or indifference, or want of knowledge of the hon. Minister of Agriculture and the government.


Mr. H. J. LOGAN (Cumberland).: Mr. Speaker, il the resolution had read that this House regrets that the imperial government has seen fit to purchase cattle in the United States of America, I think we would have Mr. SPROULE.
had a unanimous expression of opinion by this parliament which might have had some effect upon the imperial government or upon the officials in the home office who have control of the purchase of these cattle. How has this motion been brought up ? It is an evidence of absolute partyism run wild. This afternoon the hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Borden, Halifax) asked a question across the floor of the House in reference to the report dealing with the purchase of American cattle and the reply which was given to him by the hon. Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Fisher) was that remonstrances had been sent to England, to our representative there, Lord Strathcona, asking him to protest against the buying of cattle in the United States for the restocking of Boer farms. The hon. minister further said that these remonstrances had been repeated, and yet, to-night, without giving any notice of the motion to be moved, the hon. member for Compton (Mr. Pope) brings this resolution in, regretting the fact that the Canadian government did not make more strenuous efforts to prevent the imperial government from buying American cattle. What does he, or the hon. member for East Grey (Mr. Sproule), know as to what remonstrances have been made by this government to the imperial government ? They have not asked for the papers to be brought down. They have given no notice of their intention to bring this motion before parliament so that the hon. minister might bring to the House the remonstrances he sent to England, or the letters he sent to Lord Strathcona. They have given him no oppbrtunity to place these letters before the House, so that we are absolutely in the dark as to what these letters contain. Strong language has been recommended to be used to the imperial authorities. How do wre know what language has been used to the imperial authorities when we have not the letters before us which were sent by the hon. Minister of Agriculture ? The hon. member for Colchester (Mr. Gourley) has given us an oration upon the littleness of the English ministers and officials. I regret that an hon. gentleman has seen fit to make these remarks here to-night. If they were contained in the columns of the New York ' Sun ' a greater insult could not have been offered to the British nation than that which has been offered to it by a member in the House of Commons of Canada. Has it come to this that the representative of the old Tory party, the party that always thought it contained all the loyalty that could exist in Canada, is going to stand up in his place in parliament and say :	Why
did you not send them an ultimatum ? Why did you not say that if you want us to be loyai, support us ? The hon. gentleman says that if you want us to be loyal, buy our cattle. It is absolutely cattle loyalty the hon. gentleman wants. I contend, however much

we may regret that the British government has not bought our cattle, that this government has done everything that is possible and everything that any selfrespecting government could do in regard to the matter. This government did not cringe and beg that something should be given to us, but has asked in a manly and straightforward way that these cattle should be bought in Canada. What are the facts ? I am Informed, that at the conclusion of the Boer conference, when it was decided to supply a certain amount of money for the restocking of the Boer farms, the Minister of Agriculture of Canada communicated immediately with Lord Strathcona, the representative of Canada in England, and requested that an effort should be made to induce the British government to buy these cattle in Canada.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Hear, hear.


Hance James Logan: What more could the Minister of Agriculture have done at that time? Do these gentlemen opposite expect that he should have gone to England and held a gun at the head of the officials of the British government, and demanded that they should buy Canadian cattle? And what happened? *When it afterwards came to the knowledge of the Minister of Agriculture that the British government were buying these cattle in the United States of America, he immediately sent a remonstrance to Lord Strathcona. What more could any Minister of Agriculture have done ? There is no doubt that it is regrettable that the British government should have seen fit to buy these cattle in the United States. It is to be regretted that at a time when we were sending our sons to shed their blood on the veldts of South Africa, and when we were paying heavy contributions towards the Boer war ; at a time when the people of the United States were singing long live Kruger, and were praying for the success of the Boers, when almost every newspaper in the United States was coming out in yellow journalism fashion condemning England, it is to be regretted that at such a time the British government were buying horses in the United States for the use of the British army. But, Sir, we must go about this matter in a dignified manner. This government could not in self respect have done more than was done by the Minister of Agriculture in the premises. I can only regret that the motion of the hon. gentleman (Mr. Pope), instead of being one of censure on the Minister of Agriculture and the government of Canada, is not a motion of regret that the British government did not see fit to buy these cattle in this portion of the British Empire, rather than in the United States.


Ernest D'Israeli Smith: We have
many things to complain of with regard to
172}
this matter. We have to regret that although the Minister of Agriculture sent a remonstrance to the British government, he did not recognize it as his duty to follow that remonstrance up, aud as the member for Colchester has said, make the cables hot with messages to the British government endeavouring to induce them to buy these cattle in this country. This year aud last year the government have asked for thousands of dollars to extend our markets in foreign countries, but surely they should have means at their hand to be informed of what the British government is doing in the way of purchasing supplies, and to bring these purchases to Canada. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Logan) has taxed the British government with being wrong, but the British government did exactly what any wise man would do ; the British government pursued the policy which has been theirs for the last fifty years, of buying in the cheapest market. And, Sir, if the policy of the Conservative party had been adopted when they advocated a mutual preference, these cattle would have been bought in Canada and not in the United States. The Conservative party has maintained that the only sensible preference is a preference under which you get something for what you give, and if this government had adopted such a preference the English government would be buying from us to-day. There is no sentiment or sympathy in trade. The English people will buy in the best market. It is the boast of this government that as a result of the preference, England has bought more from us than she would otherwise have done, but In this very case, where the British government itself was the purchaser, it passed our doors and bought in a foreign market. Let this government negotiate for a mutual preference which will apply not only to the British Isles, but to the British colonies ; such a preference as has been advocated by the Conservative party, and then we will not have to complain of this kind of thing happening in the future. That is the only way to make trade mutually advantageous.


Andrew Broder: The admission of the Minister of Agriculture that he was not taken by surprise as to the intention of the British government to buy these cattle in the United States, ought to have given him sufficient time to make out a better case than he seems to have made with the authorities in England in connection with this matter. He ought to bring down to the House the replies which he received to the remonstrances which he made to the British government, so that we may know the reason for purchasing these cattle in the United States. We must remember, Sir, that the British government has had some experience of doing business with the hon. gentleman's department in buying hay and oats, and perhaps that may be a reason why

they did not care to buy cattle through his department.
Some lion. MEMBERS. Hear, hear.


Andrew Broder: The hon. gentleman from Cumberland (Mr. Logan) is very willing to vote for a motion of censure on the British governmeut, but he is very loath to censure those who are directly responsible for neglecting Canadian interests. We have a right to assume that if the Minister of Agriculture had made proper remonstrances to the British government, they would have given heed to them. But we cannot forget that the premier himself told the people of England that he did not want any return for the preference, and that the Minister of Agriculture, following in his leader's example, told the people the same thing when he was in England. Even a prominent official of this government who figured in political circles-in Liberal party circles some years ago in this country-he told an English chamber of commerce that the Canadian government did not want anything in return for the preference they gave to England. When you tell the English people, on one hand that you do not want anything, and then go back and tell them that you do, they do not know whether to believe you in the first instance or in the second. The position taken by the Prime Minister and by his Minister of Agriculture with regard to preference has placed them in a very sorry plight when they go to demand anything from the British government. Our hon. friend from Cumberland (Mr. Logan) says he would vote for a resolution censuring the English government. He would not give them any notice, though he, wants notice given to this government. They might have some reasonable explanation to give why they did not buy your cattle. The hon. gentleman's loyalty is not very deep ; it is hardly lip loyalty.


Hance James Logan: It is not cattle loyalty, then.


Andrew Broder: It is on four feet, however, and would leave the country at any hour. The hon. gentleman would censure the British government without any notice, but he would not touch a hair on the head of the hon. Minister of Agriculture. I say there is one of two reasons why the British government have not bought our cattle: either they do not want to do business with the government of this country after the experience they have had, or else our cattle are not the cattle they want. This House has a right to know what reason the British government have given the authorities of this country why they do not want to buy our cattle. The English governmeut over a year ago gave notice in the House of Commons, not only to this country, but to the world, that they intended to restock the farms in South Africa. There is no question that time enough was given to the


Andrew Broder: government and people of this country to make a case. I suppose the Department of Agriculture is somewhat of an intelligence department, where people who want to learn anything about the agricultural products of this country can find out; but I suppose there has been some miscarriage of duty, and the British government have not been apprized of the position of this country or its ability to fill their orders in this respect. I think the minister owes to the House some explanation of the reasons that were given by the British government. He has seen fit not to give it to the House. He had notice at three o'clock this afternoon, on a question that was asked across the House, which drew the attention of the House and the country to the fact that the English government, through Major Maude, was purchasing or intending to purchase cattle in Texas for shipment to South Africa. The Canadian people have a perfect right to know what reason the English government have given the authorities of this country why Canadian cattle could not fill the bill instead of Texas cattle. They seem to think that the Canadian people are not in a position to fill these orders. It is the duty of the authorities of this country to disabuse their minds of that idea, if that is the case, and the hon. gentleman's department surely ought to be in a position to give them the necessary information. When we asked for papers at the beginning of this session in reference to some business that was done in England through this government, they actually refused to bring the papers down, because, they said, they had reference to business connected with the imperial government-through our department here. That being the case, it is a question whether, when we ask for this information, they will give it to us. I think our hon. friend who represents Cumberland had better transfer his loyalty from the English government to this government, and censure them. It might do them good.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL (Hon. Sir Wm. Mulock).: I think, Sir. Speaker, the country has some reason to complain of the manner in which this subject has been brought before the House. At three o'clock this afternoon, the hon. leader of the opposition, on the calling of the Orders of the Day, read an item from a newspaper intimating the intention of the imperial government to purchase some cattle in the southern states for South Africa. My hon. friend the Minister of Agriculture stated then that he had caused communication to be sent to the Canadian representative in England, Lord Strathcona,' requesting him to communicate to the imperial government how desirable it was that their purchases should be made in Canada. The leader of the opposition appeared to be satisfied with that explanation, and resumed his seat, without intimating in the slightest degree that either at a later stage to-day or at any subsequent period in

the session he intended again to invite the attention of the House to the matter. And now. at nine o'clock at night, in the absence of the leader of the opposition, who appeared to be satisfied with the explanation, after the departments are closed, when documents cannot be produced, when it is not possible to give the exact language of the correspondence, the hon. member for Compton (Mr. Pope) gets up in the House, and, alluding again to a newspaper extract on the subject, moves a vote of censure on the Minister of Agriculture because the imperial government Is not purchasing cattle for South Africa in Canada. The hon. member for Halton (Mr. Henderson), not knowing the tenor of the correspondence, more than what was stated by the Minister of Agriculture, not knowing the answers except as stated here, regrets that a different course was not pursued, that greater remonstrances were not presented to the British government, that a different line of action was not taken, not knowing what the line of action was. And then we have a wholesale attack on the history of the British government and their line of conduct from beginning to end. What midsummer madness has taken possession of the opposition that they must attack everything ? They attack the Minister of Agriculture ; they attack the government in Canada, a government which I suppose hon. gentlemen will admit has done more for Canada than any preceding government, a government that commands the confidence of the people of Canada more completely than any government before it.


An hon. MEMBER.: It makes us smile.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: Yes, the country is smiling under the influence of the government. Hon. gentlemen opposite condemn the British government. My hon. friend, Tory of Tories, the member for Colchester (Mr. Gourley) knows no limit to the attack he makes upon England and upon the history of England. The great ministers who haVe gone are nothing in his eyes, they have all been enemies to Canada and the empire-all Liliputian politicians. He had not a word to say for Gladstone nor for Salisbury. None of the great statesmen of the last fifty years came up to his ideas of a British statesman :	Lord Russell. Lord
Palmerston, Mr. Gladstone, and all the galaxy of men who filled the office of premier of England for the last fifty years failed to come up to his high ideal ; none of them represent his true conception of statesmanship. There is only one man who could have filled the office of premier of England to his satisfaction : unfortunteiy for England, but fortunately for Canada, he is representing Colchester in the Canadian House of Commons. The Canadian government is only incidentally a subject of attack here. My hon. friend from East Grey (Mr. Sproule) asks, what will the 640.000 farmers of Canada think of matters that are transpiring at Ottawa to-day ? Well, Sir. to quote the testimony of one of his hon. friends, it costs $28 a minute for every one who speaks in this House. -Some of them may wonder whether they have got value for the many minutes the hon. member for East Grey and others have spoken. Why, each minute the hon. gentleman has spoken he has wasted the value of one of these Canadian cattle.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What about the Postmaster General ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: He is very economical of the people's time. He is a working man. When these 640,000 farmers are endeavouring to form an opinion on the proceedings at Ottawa, they will ask themselves this question :	Is this remnant
in opposition all that has survived of the glorious Conservative party in days gone by, which upheld in every shape the imperial connection between Great Britain and Canada ? What will they think of these members of the Tory party in this House who to-day cheer sentiments that point to the disintegration of the empire and the separation of Canada from Great Britain't These hon. gentlemen never fail to take advantage of an opportunity to assail Great Britain because of what they call her ingratitude to Canada. The hon. member for Wentworth (Mr. Smith) in endeavouring to explain why Great Britain had not purchased these cattle in Canada said that it was no doubt because of her traditional policy of purchasing in the cheapest market. That is probably the true and honest explanation, but if that be so, how does the hon. member for Dundas (Mr. Broder) reconcile it with his own suggestion, that the imperial government did not care to have any business dealings with the Department of Agriculture. I do not believe, however, that when my hon. friend gave expression to that opinion, he believed in his heart that there was any justification for it, but he merely uttered it because it suggested itself to his mind as something smart to say for the moment. In my opinion, Mr. Speaker, the
640,000	farmers of Canada will come to the conclusion that the Conservative party at Ottawa must be completely bankrupt when they can waste the time of the House over such a trumpery resolution. Had they even asked for the papers and had the papers not shown that the Minister of Agriculture had done all that could have been expected, there would then have been some justification for a motion such as this, but they were very careful not to give my hon. colleague any opportunity of bringing dowm the papers, because they knew that the correspondence would cut away the ground from under their feet. But what do they care about the facts ? If the facts are against them, so much the worse for the facts. Knowing nothing whatever of tlie facts, without asking for the papers, practically declaring that they do not want to see them, with nothing whatever except the bald fact that England, for reasons of

her own, lias made purchase of cattle elsewhere than in Canada, they propose this absurd resolution-a resolution which really implies a censure on the imperial government. The hon. member for Colchester (Mr. Gourley) did not confine his criticisms to the past and gone but embraced the living within bis range. Major Maude did not escape nor did the one man, to whom of ail men of Canada is much indebted. 1 refer to bonl Strathcona. Is there any man to whom Canada is under a greater obligation to-day than Lord Strathcona ? I need not remind you of what he has done for Canada. There is no man living who has a greater regard for the interests of Canada. Almost every day we have despatches telling us what he is doing for liis country. In the day time and in the hours of night, his mind is ever occupied in thinking liow he can best advance the interest of Canada; and when we put the case in the hands of Lord Strathcona, we placed it in the hands of one than whom no one was better fitted to secure for it the most favourable consideration. Lord Strathcona waited upon the colonial office and urged on it the desirability of making its purchases of cattle in Canada. He made the best case he could, and if he could not succeed, is there any man living who could have fared better ? Of all men he is the one who would have the greatest claim on the gratitude of the imperial government for his many gifts and services, and who has acquired an influence In the imperial councils second to none.


Seymour Eugene Gourley: He made every dollar in Canada, and he is more indebted to Canada than Canada is to him.
The rOSTMASTER GENERAL. I am not speaking of the sources of his wealth.


Rufus Henry Pope: He is our servant.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: Yes, and a most worthy servant.


Matthew Henry Cochrane: No man in Canada abused Lord Strathcona more than did the hon. gentleman himself 'when sitting oil this side, in connection with the Canadian Pacific Railway.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: I never alluded to Lord Strathcona in debate once in my life on the floor of this House.


Matthew Henry Cochrane: You abused the company with which he is connected.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: No one will believe for a moment that Lord Stratli-cona neglected to use his best efforts on the present, as on all other occasions, to promote the interests of Canada with the imperial government. * We may assume that everything possible was done, and the 040,000 farmers of this country will be of the opinion that the opposition have by this motion and the attacks which accompanied it made themselves supremely ridiculous.


Sir WILLIAM MULOCK.: 


Haughton Lennox: The hon. the Postmaster General has, in a very violent address, spoken of people making themselves ridiculous, but it seems to me that he might better have applied that description to himself. The hon. gentleman lias had considerable experience in parliament, he has travelled considerably in the interests of Canada, he has distinguished himself on the question of the postal rates, he has earned undying fame by that wou-derful postal stamp of his own devising, witli its marvellous text, and yet, with all these advantages, we now find him driven to the position of talking about everything that is not raised by this resolution and avoiding reference to anything that has been said with regard to it, in the hope that in this way he will divert the debate from its legitimate object. But the only thing he succeeded in doing was in making himself ridiculous. But before 1 say anything further with regard to the hon. minister, I want to give the reasons why I support this resolution. When I first heard it put, I was undecided whether to support it or not, because I had not heard the beginning of the discussion, and I waited to hear what the hon. the Minister of Agriculture had to say in his defence. I was greatly aided in concluding to support this resolution by the argument of the hon. minister. It is quite true perhaps that there was not much time for him to bring down the documents, bat when we recollect that, in the course of the speech, he did not venture to tell us that he had made a serious, persistent effort or vigorous remonstrance to the British government, or that he had laid before the British government the true state of the facts, I think that we have some ground for believing that the motion is well founded.
We can assume, I suppose, that the hon. minister would put the case as strongly as it could be put. Taking the case as the hon. minister has stated it himself, has this House a right to be satisfied with the position in which we find ourselves with regard to this cattle question ? The minister has said ; We made a remonstrance with the British government; we urged upon them to consider the question of purchasing our cattle. Why, Sir, we have had, this very afternoon, a declaration from the hon. minister that our dairying industry is a great industry and that our dairy products are equal to those of any country in the world. And these are dairy cattle that are being purchased to-day. The Minister of Agriculture, though very lately from Japan, returned not very long ago from Great Britain. It was his duty, while there, to have laid before the British authorities so clearly that they would not forget it, that in Canada we have the means of supplying them with cattle as suitable for their purposes in South Africa as can be had anywhere. This is not a recent matter, as the hon. minister would have us to understand.

This cattle question began to be discussed and a policy was initiated almost immediately upon the close of the war, as was stated in this article. It was for the ministry then to make serious and determined efforts to bring before the British authorities such evidence as to leave them no room to doubt that it was possible for Canada, and convenient for Canada to supply what the British government desired to purchase. Now it has been said-and this is a point that the minister has not cleared up-that there is an indication that the ministry have not that influence that we would expect them to have with the British authorities. Otherwise these cattle would certainly have been purchased in Canada. How is it that, with the strong friendly feeling that exists between Great Britain and Canada at the present time, with the recollection of what Canada did within recent times to assist the mother country, with a knowledge of the recent development of Canada and the increase of her trade, that Britain goes to the United States to purchase cattle, when we have the very animals that she requires ready to be sold ? There must be some reason that the ministry dare not discuss, that the Postmaster General dared not discuss when he got up to talk, as he did, in a way to lead us away from the issues before us to matters that do not concern us. There is a reason, and it is that the government in Great Britain have reason to believe that they cannot get exactly fair, square treatment at the hands of the government in Canada. If there was any reason that the government dare put forward, it would have been mentioned here to-night. Failing to get a reason from the Minister of Agriculture or from the Postmaster General, strongly suggests and points out that the old question that has been before the British people, the manner in which they are treated in regard to the question of the oats purchased through this government, is still lingering in their minds-and they have no great desire to deal with the Minister of Agriculture again. Now, this is an important matter in view of the advertisement it gives Canada. We have Major Maude, engaged in this matter, and that fact advertised to the world. We have these circumstances to be quoted against the people of Canada wherever we are making an effort to extend our trade. It is little help to us that the Minister of Agriculture has been, as he says, endeavouring to extend our trade in Japan, so long as, in the meantime, the market that we would naturally expect, is not secured, the sales that we would naturally expect to make have been lost. Before I proceed to pay a little attention to the Postmaster General, let me speak of one other aspect of the question. An lion, gentleman on the other side of the House who spoke in a very vigorous manner, was concerned about the question of loyalty. He thought we
were taking an improper position in intimating to Great Britain by this resolution that we wanted fair treatment. I want to say that Great Britain is a nation that loves fair play, that Britons will admire Canadians all the more for asserting themselves and showing that when we treat Britain well, we expect to be treated well in return. If there is an important point to be made in this discussion it is to let Britain understand, by the attitude, at all events, of the Liberal-Conservative party, that while there can be no doubt about the loyalty of Canadians, while we are ready to defend and support Great Britain in any just cause, at any time, at the sacrifice of either money or men, yet, when it comes to discuss business transactions, we expect that if we consider Great Britain as we have done and assist her in a pecuniary way, we will have fair treatment in return. And it is the duty of the Minister of Agriculture and of the whole administration to let the British government understand that we expect fair recognition when they are purchasing supplies that we are able to provide.
Now, the Postmaster General is troubled about the question of 828 a minute for the time of this House. He might take a little of that to himself. I think that if we were to count his speech at its proper value and contrast It with the $28 a minute, he would be considerably indebted to this country. This is not the first time the hon. Postmaster General has twitted hon. gentlemen on this side on this point. And, on each occasion, after referring to the time wasted in talking at $28 a minute, he proceeded to waste twenty minutes or half an hour at the same rate himself. He stated that he was economical. I grant that the Postmaster General is economical-wherever it suits his purpose. He is economical in certain branches of the Post Office Department, particularly where a man is to be ground down to the lowest pittance for good service rendered. But he is not economical when it comes to a large contract being let by the government of which he is a member, without tender and at extravagant prices, to creatures of the government. It is economy in these things that the people want and not that parsimonious economy which the Postmaster General indulges in to grind down persons engaged in the service of his department. The Postmaster General talks about the hon. member for Colchester (Mr. Gourley).	He is
afraid that that hon. gentleman is not sufficiently loyal. The word ' loyal ' comes well indeed from the Postmaster General. Why, he is a member of a party which, for eighteen years, went through this country preaching various doctrines which would have led to a severance of Canada from the British empire. Talk of loyalty. He is one of the pillars of this administration which, when the South African question was new, when it was mooted that we should send

assistance to Britain, when our grand Queen whose portrait I now behold-


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: Hear, hear.


Haughton Lennox: It would have been better if he had said, hear, hear, a little sooner. I say when that grand Queen was looking to her principal colony for support, were they the first ? No, they were the last to consent to send reinforcements to South Africa, And yet these hon. gentlemen talk to this side of the House about loyalty. I want to say that is not a fair way of looking at it. The population of Canada are loyal to Britain to the core ; but if there comes up a question between parties as to loyalty, it will never pay the Postmaster General to twit any man on this side of the House with disloyalty.
Now, as we have had no reason advanced why this motion should not carry, and no reason to justify the government in the attitude they have assumed, I need not take up any more time of the House. But there is another point. The Postmaster General made an excuse for not bringing down the papers. He says, oh, the departments are locked up. It was too late at eight or nine o'clock for him to get the papers. Yet every night we see them scurrying out and bringing in papers within half an hour, if they want to bring them in, but it takes an awfully long time to get them when they don't want to. On this question of the hay and oats contract, they absolutely refused to bring down the papers, and called upon their whole force to support them in denying us the fair and legitimate right we had upon that occasion. It is not encouraging for us to ask for papers from the hon. gentlemen, especially when the matter is of imminent importance. What occurred last night V Why, the leader of the opposition mentioned two cases where he had moved for papers two months ago and they were not yet brought down. I myself have been urging the government for papers ordered perhaps more than two months ago, and it is more than a month since the leader of the government announced they would be down within a day or two. They are not down yet. That is the experience we have had in asking the government to bring down papers.


Mr. R. E. MACPHERSON (Burra rd).: I believe the resolution condemns the government for not allowing the British government to buy cattle in our country for South Africa. I want to draw the attention of the House to an important statement I find in a newspaper, on that point. I hold in my hand a copy of the Calgary ' Herald ' of June 6th, in which I read :
Another Big Cattle Shipment.
Sparrow & Johnston have just received from Mexico 1,100 head of yearling steers. They ar-Mr. LENNOX.
rived at Calgary in excellent shape, after being fifteen days on the road. Only two head were lost, and these were killed accidentally. The cattle are looking well, and are believed to be an exceptionally fine bunch.
Now, why do not our hon. friends opposite condemn Canadians living in the North-west for buying cattle outside of Canada, as well as condemning our government and the British government for not buying cattle in Canada ?


Mr. FRANK OLIVER (Alta.).: When this debate started it seemed to be an attack upon the government here, before it proceeded far it turned into an attack upon the government across the water. It would appear, from the tenor of the arguments, as though there had not been any dealings between the two governments in the sale and purchase of Canadian produce. I want to put on record a fact that every body in the House knows, that owing to the exertions of the Minister and Department of Agriculture and the government generally, there have been transactions amounting to millions of dollars between the Canadian people and the British government, transactions which could not have taken place hue for the exertions of the Department of Agriculture, headed by the present minister, transactions which could not have taken place had not the British government been willing and anxious as well as able to buy from Canada and from Canadians. If tiie Minister of Agriculture is to be condemned on every occasion when the government of Britain buys some article it requires outside the limits of Canada, this parliament will be doing nothing else from now until it is finally dissolved but passing resolutions of condemnation. The British government has to buy where it can buy best. It would not be fit to control the affairs of the empire if it did not do that. There can only be one reason why the British government has bought cattle outside of Canada on this occasion, when their attention was brought to the fact that Canada had cattle to sell. They bought where they could but the cattle they wanted at a lower price than Canada could furnish them. That fact has been brought out by the extract read by my hon. friend from Burrard (Mr. Macpherson). There is no doubt, cattle required for restocking the Boer farms are not the high grade cattle that are for sale in eastern Canada. A cheaper grade of cattle will answer the purpose, and are probably more acceptable ; cattle which come from a climate more similar to that to which they are to be sent ; cattle which are lower in price than that at which they could be purchased here. Can any one find fault with either the British government or the government of Canada for such a transaction ? For my part it seems too bad that this House should be made an exhibition of before the country, by putting forward such a resolution, at such a time,

giving rise to such a debate as we have heard to-night.
House divided on amendment (Mr. Pope).
 YEAS :
Messieurs
Alcorn,	Johnston (Cardwell),
Avery,	Kidd,
Barker.	Lancaster,
Bell,	Lavell,
Bennett.	Lefurgey,
Birkett,	Lennox,
Blain,	MacLaren (Perth),
Borden (Halifax),	Maclean,
Broder.	McGowan,
Cargill,	McIntosh,
Carscallen,	Northrup,
Clancy,	Reid (Grenville),
Clare.	Richardson.
Clarke,	Robinson (Elgin),
Cochrane,	Roche (Marquette),
Earle,	Sherritt,
Fowler,	Simmons,
Gilmour,	Smith (Wentworth),
Gourley,	Sproule,
Hackett.	Thomson (Grey),
Hale.	Tolton,
Halliday,	Vrooman,
Henderson,	Wilinot.
Hughes (Victoria),	Wilson-48.
 NAYS :
Messieurs	
Archambault,	Lavergne,
Bazinet,	LeBlanc,
Beland,	Logan,
Belcourt.	Lovell,
Bourassa,	Loy,
Bourbonnais,	Macdonald,
Bruneau.	Mackie,
Bureau,	MacLaren (Huntingdon),
Campbell,	Macpherson,
Champagne,	McEwen,
Christie,	McGugan,
Copp,	Mclsaac,
Davis,	McLennan,
Delisle.	Madore,
Demers (Levis),	Malouin,
Demers (St. John),	Matheson,
DesJardins,	Mignault,
Douglas,	Morrison,
Dugas,	Muloclc (Sir William),
Emmerson.	liver,
Erb.	Paterson,
Fielding,	Puttee.
Fisher.	Reid (Restigouche),
Fitzpatrick.	Riley,
Fraser.	Roche (Halifax).
Galliher,	Ross (Rimouski),
Gauvreau,	Ross (Victoria, N.S.),
Geoffrion,	Russell,
Gibson.	Scott.
Gould,	Stephens,
Grant,	Stewart,
Harwood,	Sutherland (Essex),
Heyd.	Talbot.
Holmes,	Tolmie,
Hughes (King's, P.E.I.), Tucker,	
Hyman.	Turcot.
Johnston (Lambton)	, Turgeon,
Kendall,	Wade.
Lang,	Wallace-78. PAIRS :
Ministerial.	Opposition.
Calvert.	Taylor,
Cartwright	Tupper
(Sir Richard),	(Sir Charles Hibbert),
McCoIl.
Guthrie,
Cowan,
Fortier.
Sutherland (Oxford), McCreary,
Bickerdike,
Borden (Sir Frederick), German,
Laurier (Sir Wilfrid), Lemieux,
McCarthy,
Parmelee,
Ross (Ontario),
Thompson (Haldimand and Monck),
Dyment,
Charlton,
Tobin.
Johnston (Cape Breton) Costigan,
McCarthy,
Beith,
Blair,
Gallery,
Harty,
McCool.
MacKinnon, Prefontaine,
Sifton,
Ward,
Porter.
Pringle,
Leonard,
Haggart,
Bruce,
Rosamond,
Brock,
Kendry,
Roddick,
Kaulbach,
Osier,
Pope,
Robinson (Northumberland),
Ingram,
McCormick,
Tisdale,
Ball,
,Kemp,
LaRiviere,
Osier,
Culbert,
Monk,
Calvin,
Seagram,
Ganong,
Morin,
Boyd,
Casgrain,
Amendment (Mr. Pope) negatived, and House went into Committee of Supply.
Quarantine-salaries and contingencies of organized districts and public health in other districts, $170,220.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: There is an increase of


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: The increase is more apparent than real. In the estimates for the current year we had $110,000 for this service, but we were obliged the other day to come down and ask for a supplementary vote for $60,000, making the expenditure $170,000. The reason I was obliged to ask for this sum when we only asked for $110,000 last year was that this extra expenditure was due, as I explained when we were discussing the supplementary vote, to the continued prevalence of small-pox on our southern boundary in the United States, and to the necessity of guarding against its coming across the line, and also to a continuance of small-pox in the North-west Territories which we have been obliged to deal with, they having no provincial health authorities. The actual expenditure for the year ending June SOtli last was $170,000. This year we found it amounted to $170,000 again, notwithstanding the expectation that the epidemic would die out and that we would not require such a Large sum of money. Now, there seems to be no reason to believe that the epidemic is likely to die out during the ensuing year. If it does, we need not spend this money, but the appearances to-day are that it is just as likely to continue for the next year ns it has continued during the current year. Under these circumstances we think it necessary to take the full amount experience has

shown that we require during the last two years.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I think if I correctly understood the hon. minister, this large increase of .SCO,220 is all due to the epidemic of small-pox ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: 1 said that there was no real increase over the amount expended during the current year at all.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: 
The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: That was explained when I asked for the supply vote for the current year. AVe did not expect to require that money during the current year. When the estimates were made up for the current year the anticipation was that this epidemic would die out and that we would not require the extra expenditure. Experience has shown that it has not died out. On the contrary it has continued to be as great as it was last year and there is no indication of its decreasing, or that it is likely in the near future to decrease. AVe found that in this current year we had to spend just as much as we did last year, and we see no reason to believe that we will not have to spend as much during the ensuing year. The increase is apparent rather than real in comparison with the actual expenditure of this year. AVe are only asking for the same amount that has actually been expended this year and last year.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: It seems to me that there is no evidence that we are succeeding with this expenditure and with our quarantine regulations in keeping out the disease because the number of cases that occur seems to be quite as large during the current year as it was last year, so that there are more instead of less.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I do not think that is correct.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Aly statement is borne out by the report of the Ontario Bureau of Health. The minister stated the other night that the disease could not have been imported from the other side of the line because only two municipalities had applied to the Dominion government to pay the expenses in connection with it. That may be, but I know of two cases myself that Hon. Mr. FISHER.
were so imported, and I am quite sure that there were a great many more.


The AIINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: If such cases have occurred it must be that the patients came from the United States before the disease w'as apparent on them.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Since the minister made the statement in the House the other night, I have looked up the report, and I find that in almost every instance in Ontario the disease came from the other side of the line.


Air. CLARKE.: Has there been correspondence with the United States authorities with reference to this matter ?


The AIINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: AAre get regular reports from the authorities as to the disease in the different states along the border.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Is the disease as prevalent in the United States as it was twelve months ago ?


The AIINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I am informed that practically the condition is very much the same as it was last year.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Are there any places where the disease is particularly virulent ?


The AIINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: AAre get weekly reports from the different states and they are on tile in the department, but I have not examined them sufficiently to answer the question.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Has any of this additional expense been caused by the admission of diseased immigrants ?


The AIINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Not at all.


Rufus Henry Pope: AVhat provision is made to prevent unsound immigrants coming in ?


The AIINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: The quarantine officials see that the immigrants are not afflicted with what are called quarantinable contagious diseases. In addition to that the immigration authorities have power under a recent special Act to check the influx of immigrants who may be in any way diseased or undesirable. That Act is administered by the Department of the Interior.
AH'. REID (Grenville). Are immigrants afflicted with trachoma prevented from entering Canada ?


The AIINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I believe that trachoma, and favus are two diseases which are dealt with by the immigration authorities under this special Act ?


John Dowsley Reid: I notice quite a serious statement in to-day's ' Globe,' which I will read for the information of the minister.



[Stage Direction]
The Disease is Spreading in Buffalo. Believed to Have Been Introduced by Foreigners Entering From Canada-One Man Arrested.
Buffalo.   N.Y.@: , June 24.-Trachoma is epidemic in this city. According to the statement of an official of the United States Marine Hospital, over 100 cases of the disease have been found among the employees of the Lackawanna Steel & Iron Company. A large number of cases of trachoma have been treated by local physicians in almost every section of the city. It is believed that the disease was brought here by foreigners who came into the country by way of Canada. Joseph Skool, an Italian with a bad attack of the disease, has been placed under arrest. He came from Brantford, Ont. The disease often leads to total blindness.
I draw the attention of the minister to that because the Americans may try to send these people back by way of Buffalo.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Are these diseases dealt with by the Agriculture Department or by the Interior Department ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Trachoma is not held to be a quarantinable disease in any country in the world, and it is not dealt with by the officers of my department.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Are there two medical staffs; oue in the Interior Department and one in the Agriculture Department ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Yes.


Edward Frederick Clarke: How many officers in the Agriculture Department are detailed to look after the epidemic of small-pox.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: We have a number appointed temporarily all along the boundary line. I read the names the other night and they appear iu ' Hansard.'


Rufus Henry Pope: How do you draw a distinction between what diseases come under your department and what diseases come under the Interior Department?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Certain diseases have been declared by the International Quarantine service of various countries to be diseases which are quarau-tinable. An International Congress of medical men is held and they decide on what are quarantinable diseases, and every country adopts that.


Rufus Henry Pope: Has that been the process in the United States ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Yes, the quarantine regulations with reference to contagious diseases in the United States and Canada are the same.


Mr CLARKE.: What is the practice if one of the officers of the bon. gentleman's department finds a case for medical treatment which does not come under the quarantine diseases ? Does he keep his hands off the case or does he call for a medical officer from the Immigration Department ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: If my officers, on inspecting a ship coming from Europe, find no quarantinable or contagious diseases on board, they give the ship a clean bill of health and she passes to port. My officers examine all passengers, not recognizing any distinction between immigrants and others. When the ship comes to port, thte immigration officers through their medical officers make an inspection of the immigrants as to whether they are proper and suitable persons to come into this country.


Edward Frederick Clarke: What is the practice with regard to cases that may occur along the frontier.
The - MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.
I do not think there is any medical examination of immigrants coming from the United States, though I cannot speak positively as to that. The diseases which I have mentioned, trachoma and favus, are diseases which I understand do not flourish on this continent and are very little known here, but come from the congested parts of the old land.


John Dowsley Reid: Iu case an immigrant comes to this country say from the United States, and in the interior of the country is found by some local physician to be suffering from disease, would it not be well if it were generally understood that the physician would be paid a small reward for notifying the government, so that the government could get the immigrant out of the country as soon as possible ? Otherwise a case of this kind might simply be treated by the local doctor, and might remain in the country, causing the spread of the disease. I think if an arrangement of that kind were made, and it were generally made known throughout the Dominion, it would have a good effect.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I will draw the attention of the Minister of the Interior to the hon. gentleman's suggestion.


Mr. WILSON.: What objection would there be to having the hon. gentleman's officers examine for these cases of trachoma ? I do not see why two officers should be at one port when one would be sufficient. Any person having that disease is rejected by the United States officials every time, and I do not think we want them'in this country.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: That is a question of practical administration. When a ship is detained at quarantine, all the passengers are detained. When the ship is free, the immigrants go ashore, where they can be handled by the immigration authorities better than my officers could

handle them at the quarantine station. The rule is, I think, that diseased persons are returned immediately to the old land.


Uriah Wilson: No, sometimes they are taken to the hospital and are treated, and if they recover, are allowed to go on. The immigration officials allowed 181 to remain in this country which were rejected by the American officials. It seems to me that any immigrant who is not fitted to become a citizen of the United States is not fitted to become a citizen of Canada, ii they reject them, I do not think we want them. Certainly, we are not so anxious to have population here that we are willing to take paupers, criminals, and people who are diseased in such a way that they are rejected by our neighbours.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: This would perhaps be more fitting in connection with the immigration item. I understand that while these diseases are not contagious, they are not dangerous to the whole community like small-pox and other quarau-tinable diseases. They are only carried by the use of towels, combs and similar things ; and under ordinary supervision and segregation are not dangerous to general health and, therefore, it is permissible to bring people suffering from these diseases to the piers.


John Dowsley Reid: The reason I suggested the means I did of locating disease was this. A few days ago, there were some Greeks landed in this country, I think at Halifax, and they were simply sent from one place to another. They were really the most disgraceful lot of people I ever saw in this country. The municipalities sent them from one to another in order to get rid of them. The township of Matilda in the county of Dundas sent them to the township of Ed-wardsburg, and they were left along the roadside. They had a few rough tents, were very badly clothed, and appeared to have disease among them. They tried to get over to the United States, but the United States authorities were watching them. The Edwards-burg people moved them to Prescott, where they camped a couple of weeks, then moved further west.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Were those immigrants referred to passed by the officers at the vessels' side when they landed in this country ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I do not know where they came from, but if they came from Quebec or the maritime provinces they must have been passed by the quarantine officers.


Uriah Wilson: There is no officer in Montreal in connection with the Interior Department. There is one at Quebec, Halifax and St. John.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I may inform the hon. gentleman that the immigrants are all landed at Quebec.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: 


Arthur W. Puttee: Has the hon. minister any reports respecting some 200 or 300 who were refused admission into North Dakota during March, and were turned back to Manitoba ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: That matter is entirely in the hands of the immigration officials in the Department of the Interior, and I have no cognizance of it.


Arthur W. Puttee: Have you any medical officers there ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Yes, but they would deal only with quar-antinable diseases and would not interfere with the others.


Edward Frederick Clarke: I understand that this increase of from $50,000 to some $00,000 is due to outbreaks of quarantinable diseases in the United States ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Yes, entirely to small-pox.


Mr. VROOMAN.: I would infer that the department is hardly exercising sufficient vigilance with regard to trachoma. It appears that the American authorities will not allow people afflicted with this disease to cross their border. The fact that it is not a quarantinable disease makes it all the more serious, because these people are allowed to go around the country and mingle with others, and in that way the disease is communicated from one to the other. A dozen or so of them will use the same towel. Now is the time, before this disease has got a foothold in this country, when we should stamp it out by turning immigrants afflicted with it back, just as the Americans are doing.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I shall be very glad to repeat to my hon. colleague the Minister of the Interior the views of the hon. gentleman.


George Taylor: I see by the Auditor General's Report, on page D-92-3. that the hon. gentleman has not at all improved upon the purchasing of supplies for Grosse Isle. I see one account here for $2,922. in which the prices paid are preposterous. I find that nineteen barrels of coal oil are charged for at thirty-two cents per gallon, and $1.25 for each barrel besides. In the case of goods purchased by tender, coal oil was got for sixteen or seventeen cents per gallon, and there was no charge for the barrels. Here is a charge for twenty-five gallons of linseed oil at $1.25. when every body knows that it retails at eighty cents. Gillet's lye. twelve boxes at twenty cents, the retail value of which is ten cents. Wringers, the hon. gentleman pays $8 for, and the best manufactured wringer sells at $4 retail. Forty-eight boxes of matches are charged at $7.80, when ten cents a box is all they are worth. One thousand one hundred and

three and a half pounds of rope are charged at twenty cents, when it could be got anywhere at sixteen cents per pound. Why will the hon. gentleman persist in allowing his officers to pay these prices ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: 1 gave instructions to the officers at Grosse Isle to scrutinize the accounts submitted, and see that the charges were in every case according to the usual value of the goods. I have no reason to suppose that these instructions were not carried out, but the particular items the hon. gentleman has read were purchased last year, before I gave the instructions.


George Taylor: This account runs up to the 30th of June last year, and it was in the winter when we dismissed the items last session. Here is an account for five flags at 850.55, and making and finishing eight yards of bunting, $35. Why are these flags required at Grosse Isle at a cost of $85 ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I confess I do not know the value of flags- I do not remember that I ever bought any. Of course, the price of a flag would depend upon its size and character of the material.


John Dowsley Reid: The total expenditure for this quarantine station at Gross Isle is between $55,000 and $60,000. As about one-half is paid for salaries, this leaves about $30,000 for supplies. This is a large amount, and I would like to know whether the hon. minister advertises for tenders ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: According to the Auditor General's Report the amount spent on Grosse Isle station is $32,482.58.


John Dowsley Reid: I see that 1 included the expenditures at St. John and some other places. But, I suppose about half the expenditure would be for supplies. These supplies must be furnished every year, and must include large quantities of ordinary staple goods. Are these supplies purchased by tender after advertisements in newspa-piers, or after circulars sent to dealers in the locality, parties recommended by persons in the constituency ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: The supplies are purchased from people whose names are given to the officers there. The great bulk of the supplies are purchased in the city of Quebec, but some are procured in Montmagny, in which county Grosse Isle is situated.


John Dowsley Reid: This system would naturally lead to high prices being charged. I would appeal to the hon. minister to follow the system'tliat is followed-or claimed to be-by some other departments, and ask for tenders, if it be only by sending out a form
of tender to a number of those in the trade. For my part, I believe that by advertising in the newspapers the department will secure the best results. When goods are purchased under the system spoken of by the hon. minister, the seller is apt to charge the government more than an ordinary purchaser would have to pay. Of course, the Auditor General requires the accounts to be certified as fair anil just. But the officer at the station naturally feels that he must accept the account. If lie objects from time to time to these accounts, the dealer from whom they are bought will probably go to the member for the constituency, and being probably a strong supporter, will cause the member to appeal to the minister. Therefore, if the officer wishes to retain his position, he has no alternative but to certify the accounts as fair and just. This would account for some of the prices cited by the bon. member for South Leeds (Mr. Taylor), which are certainly fifty per cent higher than a private purchaser would have to pay. If tenders were publicly called for, the government could buy their supplies at much cheaper rates.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I appreciate what the hon. gentleman (Mr. Reid, Grenville) says. I can only say that last year when the question came up I instructed the officer to scrutinize these accounts and only to pass such as they could certify to be fair and reasonable. I have no reason to suppose that my instructions have not been carried out. I am not prepared to discuss the details in these accounts, to show whether they are reasonable or not, because I do not know the circumstances. But I can assure the hon. gentleman that no officer would be dismissed or in any way interfered with in my department-and I believe the same is true of every other department-for refusing to certify to an unreasonable account. And no political pressure or any other pressure would be allowed to interefere with an officer doing liis duty in that respect.


George Taylor: But the hon. gentleman knows that 32 cents per gallon for coal oil by the barrel is simply outrageous.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: It seems high.


George Taylor: Why should not the hon. gentleman call for tenders, when we find one account here for $2,900 and another for about $1,000 V Then turning to the next page 1 find that there are large accounts right through. I find a charge here of 6J cents per pound for sugar. Surely, if the hon. gentleman had called for tenders he could have bought the best granulated sugar for $3.75 per hundred, as did one of the boats that was supplied. And I find a charge of 14 cents per pound for soap.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: That must have been for carbolic disinfecting soap, or something of that kind. I find other soap at 5* cents and 5 cents per pound.


George Taylor: This may have been carbolic disinfecting soap, but you do not buy it elsewhere at so high a price. And here in Mr. Lesperence's accounts is a charge for practically two barrels of sugar at GJ cents per pound. And so it goes all the way through. Surely the hon. gentleman did not carry out the promises he made last year. He tells us now that he simply instructed his officers to scrutinize these accounts. Rut why did he not advertise for tenders for these supplies ? There are a lot of standard articles required here that should have been tendered for. Grosse Isle requires these supplies year after year, and why should one or two parties be called upon to furnish these supplies ? The hon. minister, as I have said, might have got sugar at $3.7.1 per hundred and he could have got coal oil at 20 cents per gallon, instead of paying 32 cents per gallon as it is here with $1.25 for the barrel

a charge quite unknown to the trade. What officer will pass such an account as that ? The people of this country have entrusted the hon. minister with their money to handle it just as carefully as if it were his own. He would not purchase at these prices for his own use : why then should he pay such prices when spending the money with which the public have entrusted him ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: When the hon. gentleman was last year examining the charges, the physician of Grosse Isle stated that he had purchased sugar for his own use at exactly the same price as that charged the government, and 'could not get it cheaper. I cannot speak as to prices for I have never purchased goods in that neighbourhood. There are a number of articles in these accounts which it would be quite impossible to purchase by tender. There might be some items which might properly be purchased by tender, and it is worth consideration whether some such arrangement might not be organized.


Uriah Wilson: How many officers have you down at Grosse Isle to whom you furnish uniforms ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Practically all of them.


Uriah Wilson: I see one item, overalls, twenty-eight sets at $4. That seems to be a very high price. An hon. gentlemen near me says seventy-five cents would be a big price.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I think perhaps that is going to the other extreme, though I must say I never paid $4 myself for overalls. I do not know, Mr. TAYLOR.
however, what character these are, or what they are made of. They may be of some particular material to suit the officials down there.


George Taylor: How many officials are there ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: There are two doctors, fifteen or seventeen men connected with the steamers and who also work on shore managing the machinery. There is also the hospital staff, five men and two women, and there are two policemen and a carter.


George Taylor: Is the carter uniformed too ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Yes. It was found long ago that where a large number of immigrants are landed it is important that the officials should be in uniform, so that they may impress the people as having authority over them. The whole staff has been maintained in uniform for many years, and I think it is a very good practice. The overalls would probably be an undress uniform.


Uriah Wilson: Does the department furnish more than one suit a year ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Only one suit a year.


Uriah Wilson: I believe the Interior Department allows a pair of pants to their officers ; and you furnish overcoats, caps and everything of that kind.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I am informed they get just one suit a year. It is made to order.


Uriah Wilson: I think you ought to lot the contract.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: In a sense it isl a contract, that is to say, the pr.ice was fixed years ago, and has been maintained ever since. It is the same price that has been paid ever since I have been in the office, and I do not know for how long before. While no tender was asked for, the cloth, and the price, and every detail were submitted when the contract was given. It is practically a contract, though it was never signed.


Uriah Wilson: But why should you give such prices ? There are two suits at $35, three suits at $25, and so on. Those are better suits than a good many members of this House wear.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: But there is a lot of gold lace, and buttons, and things of that kind on these uniforms.


Mr. LAVELL.: I see in the Auditor General's Report where eight yards of bunting are charged at $35.	[DOT]


Mr. AVERY.: Did you ask for tenders for
these overalls ? The idea of paying $4 a

pair for overalls that any store in Ottawa or in the country would readily sell for fifty cents, or seventy-five cents a piece.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: We don't know that.


Melzar Avery: It is time you did.


George Taylor: There are $987.29 paid for uniforms. That is enough to uniform a small army. What is the number of the staff uniformed ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: About thirty altogether.


George Taylor: Averaging about $30 a uniform, ladies and all.


Edward Frederick Clarke: I think we are entitled to some better explanation as to the value of these overalls. That price seems to reach over-all the others. $4.75 for a pair of overalls-they must be made of silk.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: It is a suit of overalls.


Edward Frederick Clarke: A suit, I am informed, is worth about $1.50. Really, I think there ought to be a more close inspection of these accounts.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: We do not know the material of which these overalls are made.


Mr. BLAIN.: Out of that item of $170,000, what proportion is for supplies furnished ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: $90,000 of it is not for our organized quarantine stations at all, that leaves only $80,000 for the organized districts. Of that $90,000, practically none of it is for supplies, except perhaps a few vaccine points. In the organized districts there was an expenditure of $80,000 altogether. I would have to go over the books a little to get the particulars.


Richard Blain: Just approximately.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: At Grosse Isle, which is the largest station, the supplies last year cost $7,500, out of a total of $32,000 which was spent that year.


Melzar Avery: I see that pea-jackets are charged for at the rate of $14.25 each, which is an enormous price. We handle the best kind of pea-jackets, the most durable for men in the lumber business, and $4 to $5 is a good price for them. I think the hon. minister could get a much more reasonable price if he would take the trouble to ask for tenders, and it is only reasonable to ask him to do so when such immoderate prices are charged. There must be somebody getting a big rake-off out of it, and I think it is time the hon. minister put his foot down on such charges as these.


Adam Edward Vrooman: I see at page D-92 of the Auditor General's Report a charge of
$80 made for 160 vaccine tubes by Ed. Gauv-reau, M.D., Quebec. Vaccine points are things that we get for ten cents a piece.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: These tubes contain ten vaccine tubes each. That makes the charge five cents a point.


Adam Edward Vrooman: What we understand by a tube is a small glass tube with just enough vaccine in it to vaccinate one person.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: This is a large tube and contains ten vaccine tubes.


John Reeve Lavell: I see at page D-102 of the Auditor General's Report that 37,050 vaccine tubes are charged for at the rate of five cents each.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: These are points.


John Reeve Lavell: They are called tubes, and the charge is made by Dr. Bell, in Regina, at five cents a tube.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Yes, the charge is five cents a tube. These are single tubes for each individual who is vaccinated. The others are large tubes, which contain ten of these single tubes.


John Reeve Lavell: It is most unfortunate that the report does not show it more definitely.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Yes, the report of the Auditor General in that respect seems defective.


George Taylor: Or the minister's explanation ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: No.


George Taylor: Perhaps we had better move for the aeounts and have an inquiry.
Cattle quarantine and veterinary division, $100,000.
Mr. GILMOUlt. What is the occasion of the increase here ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Here again the explanation is somewhat similar to what it was in the last item. We asked for $70,000 last year and in the estimates for this current year. That $70,000 was expected to cover everything connected with the contagious diseases of animals' branch in my department and amongst others things the charges in regard to slaughtering hogs affected with hog cholera. Unfortunately, during the last year there has been a very great prevalence of hog cholera in certain parts of the country, and we have had to pay out extremely large sums on that account. The consequence was that I was obliged to come down the other day and ask for a supplementary vote of $50,000 to cover the unusual and extra expenses, so that, as a matter of fact,

this estimate instead of being an increase over this year is a decrease, inasmuch as I have had to expend $120,000 this year and I am only asking $100,000 for next year.


James Gilmour: In regard to cattle inspection, I would like to ask the hon. minister if he is taking any extra precautions this year in regard to cattle coming from away down south ? I noticed that Inspector Perry, of the North-west Mounted Police, in his report last year stated that the inspection was very lax at that time, and I understand that the chief inspector, Dr. Rutherford, went out west in May of last year to make an inspection. I see that in his report he says that a new trade has arisen out there and that a large numbers of cattle are being imported from away down south, from Montana, Mexico, and south of the Texas quarantine fever line, and that it is necessary that an inspection of these cattle should take place. He stated that it would be necessary to employ additional officers in order to make an efficient inspection. I would like to ask the hon. minister if steps are being taken to meet that necessity ? I ventured to say in the House some time ago that cattle had come from the south into our country and I rather think they are still coming. There is direct testimony before us now that cattle do come from south of the Texas fever quarantine line into our country. They have come up this year by thousands and nearly one-half of them died as soon as they were unloaded. Large numbers of them were dead in the cars. They were found to be weak and sickly. I think it is very necessary that a most efficient inspection should be made of cattle coming in that way. It is said that they were merely brought there for the purpose of grazing and then taken back at the end of the season.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: There may be a few instances of that, but they are very few. In consequence of the visit of Dr. Rutherford to that section of the country, special arrangements have been made to watch these cattle and they are obliged to be accompanied by a certificate from the United States authorities that they do not come from the district infected with Texas fever and that they are free from disease. In addition to that they are inspected at our frontier when they come in.


James Gilmour: At all points.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: At all points at which they enter.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Does the minister say they do not come from Texas ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: '1 hey do not come from the infected parts of Texas. A portion of the northern part of Texas is north of the Texas fever line.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: 


James Gilmour: Dr. Rutherford says in his report that some of these cattle, particularly those from Mexico, were brought from south of the United States Texas fever quarantine line, and he says :
I deem it advisable to insist upon the production by all persons importing such cattle, of health certificates signed by officers of the United States Bureau of Animal Industries.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: These cattle are said to have come from Mexico, which is not in the United States.


James Gilmour: He says they came from south of the Texas fever line.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Yes, but at the same time it is not part of the United States.


James Gilmour: That does not make any difference. I am not directing my words against the United States, particularly, but against cattle coming from any place which is infected with that disease.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: These cattle have first of all to pass through the gauntlet of the United States officers on the frontier between Mexico and the United States, and then they have to pass our officers on the border.


James Gilmour: I have more faith in our own officials than I have in the others. I do not think that a health warrant from American officials away down about Texas would be very valuable. I prefer our own inspection.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: These are officers of the United States Bureau of Animal Industries, the head of which is at Washington, and I believe he keeps his officers up to doing efficient work.


Mr. HACKETT.: What is the meaning of ' veterinary divisions ' in the item.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: It includes everything in connection witli quarantine and witli dealing with cattle disease both on the frontier and in the country. On former occasions we had two or three votes for this purpose, but this year and last they have been included in one. For the last year or two we have been obliged to undertake a considerable amount of work in connection with the health of animals in the country.


George Taylor: What duties does Dr. Couture of Quebec perform ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: He attends to the cattle quarantine at L6vis. and he also does any veterinary service for the department in the neighbourhood of Quebec.


George Taylor: You pay Dr. Couture $1,000 a year, and he draws besides $564.70, or nearly $2 a day for ferry fares and cab-

hire. You can cross tlie ferry at Levis for five cents.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Dr. Couture practices iu Quebec and lie has to cross to Levis and thence to the cattle quarantine, which is probably a mile from the ferry. He is obliged to visit the cattle quarantine every day and sometimes twice a day.


Edward Hackett: Is Dr. Pethiek, of Prince Edward Island, a permanent officer ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Yes.


Edward Hackett: Has lie discovered any tuberculosis in that province ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: For the last year or more we have not had any report of any cases of tuberculosis in Prince Edward Island.


Edward Hackett: Dr. Pethiek has $50 a month salary. What do you allow him in the way of cab-hire ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: He gets an allowance per day for horse-hire. I suppose that some days he spends four or five times what is allowed him, and other days he might not spend anything at all.


Mr. LEFURGEY.: How much is the allowance ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Thirty-two dollars and fifty cents a month.


Alfred Alexander Lefurgey: You said that on some days lie spends three or four times his average allowance for each day.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: It is about $1.25 per day and I think that some days he might pay $4 or $5.


Alfred Alexander Lefurgey: There is no such a thing ns anybody paying $4 or $5 a day for the hire of a horse. In Prince Edward Island you can get a horse a whole day for $1.25.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: You certainly could not get it up here.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Has the bon. minister any information about the recent outbreak of hog cholera in Bruce ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I am informed that probably it .came from the county of Essex. I am informed that the cars that stopped there were loaded principally at Belle River and at Harrow in the county of Essex.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What means have been taken to stamp it out ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: The usual course was pursued of stamping out this disease. All hogs which were affected or were in contact with affected hogs, were slaughtered, the premises were disinfected and the place quarantined.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: How many were slaughtered ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Three hundred.	,


Thomas Simpson Sproule: In such cases do you pay any proportion of the cost ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Yes, of the diseased cattle, one-third, and of those in contact, three-fourths of their value.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: How many outbreaks of hog cholera have occurred in Essex during the past year ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I believe there is no hog cholera known in Essex at the present time. Without giving the figures as absolute, I am informed that there were probably twenty outbreaks in the county of Essex during the past year.
,Mr. SPROULE. Then it cannot be stamped out very well.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: 1 do not undertake to say that it is stamped out. The misfortune has been that we have not absolutely stamped it out. We may stamp out the disease and have none in a certain county to-day, and to-morrow we may have an outbreak which may cost us $1,000. It is a most persistent and insidious disease, and we have not been able to adopt any plan for stamping it out.


John Sherritt: How do you account for it being more prevalent in Essex than in other counties ? ,


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: For one reason, I suppose that there are a great many hogs there. The disease lias been there a long time, and although we have periods when there is no disease in Essex, the germs may remain, so that under conditions that are favourable to it, the disease breaks out.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Do you not think it unwise not to have the place quarantined, but to allow the disease to be spread over tiie country to localities where it lias not existed before ? I notice every little while that there is hog cholera in Essex. To allow hogs to be taken from there to other parts of the country is only to spread the disease.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: 1 would not like to characterize that county in that way. As a matter of fact, this year there has been more hog cholera in Kent than in Essex. Speaking generally, I do not think the other outbreaks in the county this year have been traced to Essex. The hon. gentleman speaks about quarantining. We do quarantine any section where the disease is found. We have quarantined whole townships, and have sometimes had bitter complaints about preventing people shipping their hogs. We have not done that



except where we thought it absolutely necessary to prevent the spreading of the disease from the township to other parts of the country.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Then the quarantining could not have been very successful, for the fact is that the disease was brought from that county and broke out in Bruce. In speaking of the district in question, we refer to both Essex and Kent. The fact that the disease is so prevalent there may be Rue to the nearness of the United States or to the kind of food.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: 1 do not think it is imported from the United States. As a matter of fact, very few hogs come in from the United States. In the old days, when more hogs were imported, perhaps that was why that part of the country became infected. At the present time I do not think that any hogs come from the United States. If they do, they are quarantined for five days at the frontier, which is more than the period of incubation of this disease. The disease breaks out occasionally without any reason that we can find out-not where they were quarantined, but some how or other it is carried to other parts of the country, where it breaks out, and we have a heavy bill for the slaughter of hogs.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What has been paid for the destruction of hogs during the last year, from this cause ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Up to the 19th of May, 10* months, $33,534.71.


Mr. CLANCY.: I am afraid we can scarcely hope to be entirely free from hog cholera in the west. There is a general belief there that much of this disease is brought in from the United States. Whether that belief is well founded or not, I am not in possession of information that will enable me to say. I will only state the case as it appears. We have three railway trunk lines running through that western country. In the summer season the railways stop their trains at these stations and turn the hose on the hogs and wash them. That is said to be a source of the disease. Then, it is said that it is carried by dogs going through the country. We have had a very difficult experience in the west with hog cholera. I am prepared to say, from my own experience, that very stringent measures are taken by the officers of the department to do away with it. In spite of that, and what is thought to be a burdensome quarantine, which lias apparently completely stamped it out, it breaks out again unexpectedly at some distance away. I have absolutely no more hope that you will get rid of hog cholera in the western part of Canada than you will get rid of small-pox for all time. In Hon. Mr. FISHER.
many parts of the country it is thought that there is a good deal of carelessness in this matter. We will find some cases where farmers are not willing to tell for the simple reason that they only get three-quarters of the value of their hogs that come in contact with the disease and a smaller sum where the hogs are diseased and have to be slaughtered, but notwithstanding all this, the people are on the alert and there is a strong feeling that the disease should not be allowed to get root in any locality.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Why not quarantine the locality infected with cholera ? There must be laxity somewhere when a carload from an infected locality can be brought to another section where there has never been hog Cholera. In the United States localities infected with the Texas fever are quarantined and no intercourse is allowed between stock from that locality and stock in other places.


James Clancy: Surely the hon. gentleman would not propose to quarantine a locality ou mere suspicion ? It is only suspected that the cholera broke out in consequence of this carload of hogs being brought from Essex.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The information I read was that the hogs were brought from Essex to feed on the whey and milk of the cheese factory and that it was among those hogs the cholera broke out.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: It was not known at the time that there was any 'hog cholera in Essex county, and I would not like to quarantine a locality which was free from the disease. Essex county was free from the disease, as far as anybody could make out, when that shipment went from there to Huron. The disease was attributed to the shipment, but there was no disease in Essex at the time, nor was there any among the animals when they arrived at their new quarters. It would not be advisable or practicable to quarantine counties affected by hog cholera and treat them as portions of the south are treated with regard to Texas fever.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I do not know why the hop. minister would not be justified iu doing so. If the history of the past shows that the cholera has broken out over and over again in a certain locality, that locality should be quarantined. England has quarantines, Canada and the United States* on account of pleuro pneumonia, and we would be only doing what other countries have regarded as wise and prudent.


Edward Hackett: I want to get a little further information about Doctor Pethick. He is engaged permanently. Is he allowed to engage in private practice ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Dr. Pethick is engaged at a salary of $000

per year, wbicli justifies us in calling on him to do work for the department at any time, either in Prince Edward Island or the mainland, but he is allowed to practice for himself when not occupied in the work of the department.


Edward Hackett: According to the Auditor General's Report, page D-110, his salary for twelve months at $50, amounted to $000. He was paid horse-liire 313 days at $1.25. He must have had a horse every day of the year. Then for hoard he was paid $149.50; ferries, $1.70; railway fares, $2.25; disinfectants, $15.50; horse-hire, again, $17.50; telegrams, 75 cents;, postage, $2; telephone, $2.75; two thermometers at $1.50; rent of telephone six months, $5; subscription to veterinary journal, $5. Total $1,195.22. Then when 1 turn to page D-100, 1 find there Dr. Pethick again, horse-hire, $2; railway and boat fare, $0.25; board, $15.75; rabbits, $2; cage, $1. What were these required for ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: For some inoculation experiments which Dr. Pethick was carrying on.


Edward Hackett: Is the hon. gentleman sure that they were not rabbits infected with tuberculosis, which required to be quarantined ? Telegrams, $3; telephone, 75 cents; postage, 50 cents; making in all over $2,000.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Not at all; only $1,200.


Edward Hackett: The hon. gentleman is right. But he was employed at $50 per month and his expenses were exactly equal to his salary.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: A very considerable amount of this expenditure was incurred by Dr. Pethick in an investigation on the mainland at Pictou of cattle disease. He was sent over by my orders to make an investigation regarding that disease. I informed the hon. gentleman a few minutes ago that Mr. Pethick's work is not confined to the island altogether. These items are for expenditures as well as for salary.


George Taylor: There are only 313 working days in the year and he charges for 313 days' horse-hire.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I am informed that he has an arrangement for horse-hire at $1.25 per day. Sometimes he spends a great deal more, and sometimes nothing at all.


Richard Blain: What were the duties of Dr. Rutherford in England during last year ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Dr. Rutherford was sent to England the year before last to test cattle which were being exported from England to Canada- test them with tuberculin. An arrangement was made at the request of the im-173*
porters of live stock to test them in England instead of at our quarantine here. And for two seasons that was carried out. Dr. Rutherford was there the first season and carried out the work.


Richard Blain: Did he make a report to the department of the work done ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Yes. Regularly.


George Taylor: I would like to say to the Minister of Agriculture and to the hon. gentleman (Hon. Mr. Fielding) who is leading the House that my hon. friend from Peel (Mr. Blain) wanted to bring up the cold storage question on this item. I would suggest that this item be disposed of and that we discuss the cold storage question on another item. The census is the only one left.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I would like to say that when we do take up that discussion on the census item, I would like to discuss the two questions separately. I would like to discuss the questions arising under what are called Professor Robertson's votes, dispose of that and then discuss the census separately.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: There may be some sup-piemen taries.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I do not know of any supplementaries in my department on these items.
Some resolutions reported.



ADJOURNMENT-BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

[Stage Direction]
The MINISTER OF FINANCE (Hon. W. S. Fielding) moved the adjournment of the House.
Thomas Simpson Sproule: What business will be taken up to-morrow ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I think the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals (Hon, Mr. Blair) is absent; but if he is in the House to-morrow we shall probably resume consideration of his Bill, and afterwards go into supply, taking up the supplementary estimates for the'current year, the items under the direction of the Minister of Public Works. If the Minister of Railways and Canals returns, he may desire to take up a portion of the day on his Bill.


George Taylor: It would be better to go into supply first, and let the Minister of Railways and Canals take the latter part of the day. He has been taking the earlier part of the day hitherto.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: If the hon. gentleman will promise me that when the proposal to go into supply is made we shall immediately go into supply, I will make a bargain with him.



NICOLA KAMLOOPS AND SIMILICA-MEEN COAL AND RAILWAY

[Stage Direction]
COMPANY.	.
Mr. GALLIHER moved :: That the petition of the Nicola, Kamloops and Similkameen Coal and Railway Company presented to-day praying for an Act to confirm their charter be read and received forthwith, in accordance with the recommendation contained in the 14th report of the Select Standing Committee on Standing Orders.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: This is an exceptional time to bring up such a matter.


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER.: It can come up on ' motions ' to-morrow.


William Alfred Galliher: But the Committee on Standing Orders meets to-morrow and my reason for bringing the matter up now is that I wish it to be dealt with to-morrow and reported on. I spoke to Mr. Speakei' with regard to it.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I have only to say that there should be some time when finality is reached with regard to these petitions. The rules are plain enough and are available for everyone who wishes to learn what they are. We met on the 12th of March, and it is now the 25th June. Yet these petitions are coming in as though this session were to go on perpetually. There should be some time when we reach finality with regard to these petitions.


William Alfred Galliher: I may explain for the information of' the hon. gentleman (Mr. Sproule) that some weeks ago I obtained the usual permission from the House to present the petition notwithstanding the fact that the time has elapsed. The delay in presenting it has arisen in this way-the Act had to he confirmed hy the British Columbia government, because that company are asking in British Columbia for an extension of the time for the construction of their line, and there was delay until the Act was passed.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: That would be an exceptional case.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Motion to adjourn agreed to, and House adjourned at 1 a.m. Friday.
[Stage Direction]
Friday, June 26, 1903.