1903-06-08

THE TREADGOLD CONCESSION.

Mr. R. L. BORDEN (Halifax).: Before the Orders of the Day are called, I would like to ask the Prime Minister when the terms of the Treadgold Commission will be laid on the Table. I rather gathered the right hon. gentleman's assent to the view that the terms of the commission might be brought down pending the appointment of some commissioner or some commissioners.


Mr. HENDERSON.: My recollection is that last year we were having a survey made of Lake Erie. I would like to ask the hon. minister if that is completed, and if it has been filed ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: I am informed that there is no survey of Lake Erie, but that the survey of Lake Huron has been completed.
Steamboat inspection, $30,000.


Robert Laird Borden: There is an increase of $1,000.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: That is for increases of salaries.


The PRIME MINISTER.: I think they will be brought down probably during the present sitting.



THE TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION.

Robert Laird Borden: When will the terms of the Transportation Commission be brought down ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS (Hon. James Sutherland).: The Order in Council appointing the Transportation Commission was laid on the Table a week ago, and it contains all the information that is at present to be had.


Robert Laird Borden: I was not aware of that.


Hon. Mr. TARTE.: Who has charge of the service now ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: Mr. Adams is chairman of the Board of Steamboat Inspection.


Mr. POPE.: Have there been any new unties imposed upon these officers to warrant these increases ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: The salaries were very low.
Some resolutions reported.


The PRIME MINISTER.: Oh, yes.


Robert Laird Borden: Laid on the
Table in blank ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: No; a complete copy.



FAST ATLANTIC SERVICE.

Robert Laird Borden: The Minister of Trade and Commerce said he would have an announcement to make to the House to-day with regard to the fast Atlantic service.
The MINISTER OF FINANCE moved the adjournment of the House.


Robert Laird Borden: What business may we expect to-morrow ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: The hon. Minister of Railways and Canals (Hon. Mr. Blair) is not present, but I understand that he proposes to proceed with his Bill in regard to the railway commission, and if there is time we will take up one or two other Bills on the Order paper, as to which some progress may be made, if not supply.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House adjourned at 2.15 a.m. Friday.
The PRIME MINISTER.: Two tenders have been received, and they will be laid on the Table of the House during the present sitting.



RAILWAY ACT, 1903.

[Stage Direction]
House again in Committee on Bill (No. 21) to amend and Consolidate the Laws respecting Railways.-The Minister of Railways and Canals.
On section 122,
The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS (Hon. A. G. Blair).: I think we can improve this section by striking out the


Joseph Israël Tarte: word * lots ' on line 41 and substituting the words ' portion of land proposed to be taken on each lot,' and by substituting the word ' board ' for the word ' minister.'


Mr. LANCASTER.: 1 have no objection to that, but I call the attention of the minister to this : Section 123 of the present law provides that the company shall make this plan in sections if it so desires. It works out this way: A railway going through several counties makes its plans in sections and goes on with the work in one county even before they may have their lots registered in the counties further on. If the plan is not made in sections this could not be done, and disputes might arise. Does the minister think that the law at present would allow them to proceed with the whole plan or with only one part of it ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: It would, and that is one of the things we want to remedy. They could lay their plan on a particular section and we approve of it, whereas if we saw the whole plan we might not allow it.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: I understand the section to mean that prima facie the company are to make a plan or profile of the whole railway, and that the minister intends that they shall not proceed wiith any part of the railway until the whole plan is before the board.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: They may be required to make the plans in section.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to, and section as amended agreed to.
On subsection 2 of section 130,
Nothing in this section shall be taken to authorize any extension of the railway beyond the termini mentioned in the special Act.
The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I move to amend this subsection by commencing with the following words :
The board may, either by general regulation or in any particular case, exempt the company from submitting a plan, profile and book of reference as in this section provided, where such deviation, change or alteration is made or to be made for the purpose of lessening a curve, reducing a gradient, or otherwise benefiting the railway, or for any other purpose of public advantage as may seem to the board expedient, provided such deviation, change or alteration shall not exceed three hundred feet from' the centre line of the railway located or constructed in accordance with the plans, profiles and books of reference deposited with the board under this Act.


Mr. LENNOX.: I understand this to be a proposal that in case the company desire to reduce a curve or lessen a gradient all the procedure that is ordinarily applied shall not apply. I can see that there may be good reason for that proposal. But at the same time there may be a very good reason for opposing it. It is not advisable, of course, to hamper railway companies too
much, but it appears to me that the right of the adjoining owners might be very seriously jeopardized by that line of procedure. I do not know whether I am right in assuming that under the ordinary procedure the owner of the adjoining land would be notified. At all events, I presume, if not notified in the ordinary sense, yet there will be registration which will be notice to him, and in this case I presume the whole matter might be carried through without the land owner having any means of raising an objection before the board. I will submit to the hon. minister that this is probably a dangerous change to make in the law. I can understand very well what the bon. minister has in view, which is very commendable in the broad sense, but yet I am inclined to think that it is likely to introduce a greater evil than will be compensated by any advantage that will result from the alteration of the law.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: The subject, I am free to admit, occasioned a good deal of consideration before 1 finally came to a conclusion, but I thought it would be as well that this change should be made. I was strengthened in coming to that conclusion by having my attention called to the English Act. It has been for some time otj the statute-book in Great Britain and provides for a possible deviation under these conditions of a hundred yards. One can understand that while you are engaged in the actual construction of a railway thousands of miles away, as in this country, the necessity of having your whole plan recast and of making an application for sanction for a deviaton of a trifling distance, perhaps two or three feet, would be a very serious inconvenience and we could scarcely imagine that there could be any disadvantage which would justify us in refusing to allow such a deviation to be made. The adjoining owner whose lands may be encroached upon or taken for this deviation has precisely the same rights and the same proceedings would be required to be taken as in the expropriation in the first instance, so that, he would not be subjected to any disadvantage at all.
Mr. LANCASTER, I am inclined to think that the hon. gentleman for South Simcoe (Mr. Lennox) is correct in his objection. The hon. minister does well enough to state that these things may be required to be done for the reasons which he has given when looking at it from the railway point of view, but I have not heard the hon. minister say yet whether the convenience of the public should not be considered a little more in this matter. If the law remains as it is without .this amendment I understand the difference would be that the owners of property where land was going to be taken, by going to the registry office, would ascertain exactly where the lands were that were going to be taken. Let me put a case like this to the hon. minister : Knowing

where the lands were which were going to be taken by the railway by the plan filed and by making a little inquiry about it a man who was undertaking to improve his property would put buildings and other structures in one place that he otherwise would put in another place, probably some 300 yards away from where the railway was to go according to the plans filed. It will be said that if this deviation is made he will be compensated in damages by the arbitrators for the lauds taken and the damage done to his buildings, but no damages in money that a man gets fully compensates him in many cases. The arbitrators have to do their best to see that he does not get too much or too little as far as money can compensate him, but if a man puts his property in shape for permanent living and he has to take the market value in money for damages done to it, such money damages do not compensate it. It is not well that such a state of affairs should be brought about, because, if he has to give up his property, he must necessarily be obliged to take money for the damage done it. The mischief I see is that a man does not know where the railway is going. He has no notice of this deviation. This subsection would take away the necessity of this deviation being registered, as I understand it. I understand it gives the board power to allow any deviation without all these preliminaries being gone through.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: The only formality that is not required to be gone through is that the whole location is not required to be shown on plans and profiles as is required to be done in the case of the original location. The law as it stands now gives the Railway Committee of the Privy Council power to allow a deviation to be made.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: But only to the extent of 300 feet.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: It is unlimited.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: But there must be a refiling of the plans.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Yes, they have to refile their plans. They could not go upon another man's land and take land from him without going through the same formality that is necessary in order to expropriate as far as registration is concerned.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: But the refiling of the plans is what they get away from.


Haughton Lennox: I would ask the hon. minister if what is aimed at by the proposed amendment is to prevent the railway company from having to apply to the board for permission to make an alteration in the plans ? In other respects they will have to go through the ordinary formalities of the Act. They will have to register the devia-Mr. LANCASTER.
tion in the registry office the same as in any other case. Am I right in understand-it in that way ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: That is right.
Section, as amended, agreed to.
On section 131,


Hon. Mr. HAGGART.: Does that amend the old Act in any particular ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: We simply embody in this one section what previously had been contained in two, without making any alteration in the principle.
On section 132,


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I move to amend that section by striking out the words ' or build ' and substituting the words ' the line of,' and to insert after the word ' thereof ' the words ' nor construct the same nor any portion thereof.'


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
On section 132, subsection 2.
John Graham Haggart: Is that clause retroactive in any respect with regard to lands already owned by railways ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I do not see how it could affect anything that has been done.


Mr. HUGHES (Victoria).: It might affect lands that were granted, but for which patents have not been issued.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: It could not affect any one's right prior to the passing of this Act.'
On section 133,
1.	No owner, lessee or occupier of any such mines or minerals dying under the railway or any of the works connected therewith, or within forty yards therejrom, shall work the same until leave therefor has been first obtained from the board.
2.	Upon any application to the board for leave to work any such mine or minerals, the applicant shall submit a plan and profile of the portion of the railway to be affected thereby, and of the mining works or plant proposed to be constructed or operated, affecting the railway, giving all reasonable and necessary information and details as to the extent and character of the same.
3 The board may grant such applications upon sucn terms and conditions, as to protection and safety of the public, as to the board seem expedient, and may order that such other works be executed, or measures taken, as under the circumstances appear to the board best adapted to remove or diminish the danger arising, or likely to arise, from such mining operations.


John Graham Haggart: Surely this must mean within forty yards of the track. If not, miners would be prevented from work-

ing tlieir mines within forty yards of any railway station or railway line.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: It is as well to keep on the safe side.


John Graham Haggart: Is this provision in any other railway Act ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: This is taken from the English Act.


Haughton Lennox: I think this section is liable not to work very satisfactorily. I think that to provide that a mine must not be operated within forty yards of a railway property, is limiting the rights of the mine-owner too much. There must, of course, be reasonable regard paid to the safety of the travelling public and the safety of the railway property; but it does not appear to me that in any case forty yards from a railway property as distinct from a railway track is required for that purpose. I understand the minister to say that this is a new section. It is new, at all events, as far as Canada is concerned. It is true that the rights of the mine-owner are protected to some extent by providing that he may make an application to the board ; but that is a matter of delay and expense, and will not always, I suppose, work satisfactorily. I think that this section, if passed at all, ought to be narrowed down to some extent. I think there is a greater measure of protection afforded to the railway company here than is necessary.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 134,
No company shall take possession of, use or occupy any lands vested in His Majesty, without ithe consent of the Governor in Council ; but with such consent, any such company may, upon such terms as the Governor in Council prescribes, take and appropriate, for the use of its railway and works, but not alienate, so much of the lands of the 'Crown lying on the route of the railway as have not been granted or sold, and as is necessary for such railway, as also so much of the public beach, or of land so vested covered with the waters of any lake, river or stream, or of their respective beds, as is necessary for making and completing and using its said railway and works ; and whenever any such lands are vested in His Majesty for any special purpose, or subject to any trust, the compensation money which the company pays therefor shall he held or applied by the Governor in Council for the like purpose or trust. 51 V., e. 29, s. 99. Am.
John Graham Haggart: Yrou have changed some portions of this section. What is the object of inserting the words ' so vested ' 1 Then, you have struck out the word ' canal,' so that a railway cannot go over a canal now.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: It refers to lands vested in His Majesty.


Haughton Lennox: This, I presume, is very much in line with the old Act, and probably it has been carefully considered by the minister ; but it is dealing with an exceptionally important subject, that of rivers and streams cut off, perhaps, by a railway running along their edge. That, I presume, would be considered by the board when the application came before them.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: The Governor in Council controls the whole thing.


Haughton Lennox: I understood that the question of location was to he laid before the hoard ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: That is right.


Haughton Lennox: That is one of the points to he considered, if the public interest is to determine the location.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: This would allow a railway to cross a canal. The old Act would not.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: It is the same thing, only it is put the other way.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: I see that this clause provides that with the authority of the Governor in Council a company may appropriate, for the use of Its railway and works, but not alienate, so much of the lands of the Crown lying on the route of the railway as have not been granted or sold, and as is necessary for such railway, as also so much of the public beach or lands so vested, covered with the waters of any lake, river or stream-


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: Formerly ' canal ' was included. We struck that out.


John Graham Haggart: How are you to cross a canal if the Governor in Council lias not been given power to consent ?


Edward Arthur Lancaster: That is wbat I was about to point out. If we cannot cross a caual, should we not amend this so that we may do so on some terms or other. In my locality, the Grand Trunk Railway intends building across the new Welland canal an overhead bridge, where the locks are very close. Where is the authority to come from to do that ? There ought to be some provision to allow railways to cross canals.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I do not Interpret this clause as preventing the Governor in Council from giving a railway company permission to cross a canal.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Is not that implied ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I do not think so. When parliament gives a charter to a railway to pass between the two points, that gives it the right to pass over everything between those

points, and section 181 provides how a railway may pass over a canal.


John Graham Haggart: As the canals are specially struck out from this clause there is evidently need of a further clause to empower a railway to cross a canal. If a railway company came to a canal, and the department or the government have not the power to allow it to build across the canal, the only possible way that power could be got would be by Act of parliament.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Parliament gives a charter for the construction of a railway between two different points, and there is a canal between those two points, parliament has conferred on the company the right to cross the canal, and section 181 provides for the regulation by the board of such crossing.


John Graham Haggart: When parliament gives power to construct a railway between two points, it does not give power to pass over a single particle of Crown lands of any description. Provision is made in this Bill by which the Governor in Council may give the company permission to pass over these Crown lands and navigable streams, but there is none giving power to cross a canal.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Take the case of a road which runs alongside a canal and has to build a spur across a canal, will you have to get a special Act to allow it to cross the canal ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Not at all. Under its charter, it may build between certain points and then build six mile branches wherever the Governor in Council may approve.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Will the company have power without a special Act to cross a canal under those circumstances ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: They would have the power to cross without a special Act as they have to cross with a special Act, because the General Act is sufficiently comprehensive.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: But the position is peculiar. No doubt the hon. minister grasps it, but I want to make sure. Until to-day they have had the power under the General Railway Act. But now we are passing an Act which repeals that. It does not affect the works already constructed, but it repeals their rights for the future.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: This section is intended merely to give the Governor in Council power to vest certain lands and property in the company. Among other things, the Governor in Council had the right under the old law to vest a canal in the company. If a company were chartered to build a road from point A to point B, they might get the right to pass over all the lands intervening and, if they came to a Hon. Mr. BLAIR.
highway or canal, the Act of parliament which is their charter might give them the right to pass over it. This clause, as I understand it, is merely for the purpose of regulating the mode of user of the rights conferred by the charter. These rights are always subject to the limitations of this Act. So, the effect of the amendment is merely to take from the Governor in Council the right to vest in a railway company any portion of a canal. That is all.


Robert Laird Borden: I should hardly have supposed that the Minister of Justice would go as far as he has gone. If you give a company the right to build a railway from point A to point B, they cannot build except upon their own land. They must have the power to expropriate.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: Yes.


Robert Laird Borden: The same consideration applies to any argument with regard to this. You may say that a railway has power to build between two points. But if there is a canal or a highway intervening, they must get power to cross it.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: They get that power under another section.


Robert Laird Borden: I have not examined the section, but I thought the Minister of Justice went further than I would be prepared to go. It appears that we have the same ideas with regard to the matter. The power to expropriate private lands must be given by the statute if it is given at all, and the same with regard to the power to cross a highway or canal. Do we find it in the statute ? I did not quite observe whether the hon. minister thought it was to be found in this section.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: This section confers upon the Governor in Council the right to do a certain thing. Under the old statute, section 99, the right was vested in the Governor in Council to make a conveyance of land in a canal to the company. This takes away from the Governor in Council that power. But when we come to deal with the question of crossing a canal, section 181 provides the method.


John Graham Haggart: How can they get over without owning the land ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: They do not.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: It is not intended that they should.


John Graham Haggart: But they caunot construct a bridge, or pier or perhaps an abutment in the stream without owing the property.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: But they do not own the bed of the canal.


Mr. INGRAM.: I have been trying to bring a possible case before my mind. Take,

for instance, a harbour. A railway company has the right to build a line of railway down to the harbour and alongside the piiers for its own purposes, and lias built the road. But an afterthought strikes them, and they want to cross a river or canal running into the harbour. Would the hon. minister (Hon. Mr. Blair) say that this would giVe the company the right to do that-to build on both Slides of the harbour and monopolize it to the detriment of other railway companies that wished to go there ? And would the government be justified in spending large sums of money to improve the harbour and then give a railway company a monopoly of that harbour ? Surely that is not it. Would they have the power to do that ? Where would they get the power to do that ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: They would have to get it from parliament.


Andrew B. Ingram: There is no question about that ? They would have to come to parliament to get that charter or authority. They could not get it under this.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Not at all. I would like to call the attention of the hon. senior member for Halifax (Mr. Borden) to the Railway Act, section 99. It provides as follows :
No company shall take possession of, use or occupy any lands vested in Her Majesty, without the consent of the Governor in Council ; but with such consent, any such company may, upon such terms as the Governor in Council prescribes, take and appropriate for the use of its railway and works, but not alienate, so much of the lands of the Crown lying on the route of the railway as have not been granted or sold, and as is necessary for such railway, as also much of the public beach, or of the land covered with the waters of the lake, river, stream or canal, or of their respective beds, as is necessary.
And so on. It might be claimed under that section that the Governor in Council could actually give a title to land over which the waters of a canal were flowing-the bed of the canal. Now, that is not a power, it appears to me, that can properly be given. Therefore, it seems desirable that we should strike out the word ' canal,' and, in doing so, we are only, as I interpret the Act, divesting the Governor in Council of power to give a title to the bed of a canal. Taking the different sections, you confer the right to a railway to cross a canal through the air on a bridge, but you do not confer upon them the slightest title in the bed or waters of the canal.


Robert Laird Borden: I think 1 understand the case of the Minister of Railways and Canals in so far as his discussion of the policy is concerned. He thinks it inexpedient that the government should have power to alienate the bed of a canal for the purposes of a railway company. As a statement of policy I would be disposed to agree. But, under sections 134 and those following, 130
you have provision made for the right of way. The first thing you deal with in the section_ before the committee is the right of way of property of the Crown. In section 137 you deal with the right of way over lands of other companies. Then, you deal with the power to take the lands of private owners. Is not that the scheme ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Yes, except that-


Robert Laird Borden: The only point la controversy between the Minister of Railways and Canals, the hon. member for South Lanark (Hon. Mr. Haggart) and the hon. member for Lincoln and Niagara (Mr. Lancaster), so far as I can see is this : Whether or not, in striking out the word * canal ' and thereby taking away from the company, even with the consent of the Governor in Council, the power to invest itself with the bed of a canal, you have not gone too far and taken from the company the power to get across the canal at all. That is the only question, and it is a question largely for the hon. minister. We have pointed out the difficulty, and it could be remedied by a few words.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: The question is whether section 181 is wide enough.
On section 137, subsection 2.	.
Such approval may be given upon application and notice, and after hearing, the board may make such order, give such directions, and impose such conditions or duties upon either party, as to it may appear just or desirable in the public interest ; and in case the parties fail to agree as to compensation, the board may, by order, fix the amount of compensation to be paid in respect of the powers and privi-ledges so granted.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I move to strike out the words ' in the public interest ' and to substitute ' having due regard for all proper interests.'


Edward Arthur Lancaster: I would suggest to say instead ' having due regard for the public and all proper interests.'


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I have no objection to that.


John Graham Haggart: What is the effect? Just as it may appear desirable in the public interest ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: To make such orders as may be considered in the public interest.


John Graham Haggart: If there are other interests to consider than those of the two railway companies, then the board steps in ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Certainly. I wish to go back to the interpretation clause and to amend sub-clause f, by inserting after the words ' Superior Court ' the words ' or county court.'


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
[Stage Direction]


On section 141-power to take or use lands for ballast pits, water, and materials, and-for right of way to same.
Edward Arthur Lancaster: I would like to ask the minister why he takes away the precaution of having a certificated land surveyor make the plan and description. We have always found that desirable in order to secure accuracy of description. It is very difficult to know where lines go without a perfect description. It sometimes depends on where a line runs, within a foot or two, whether a man accepts an offer or not. 1 think it would be well to have in the Bill the words that were in the old Act, providing that the plan and the description shall be made by a licensed provincial or Dominion land surveyor.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I have no objection to incorporate that in the Bill.
Mr. LANCASTER moved to amend the section by inserting after the word ' thereof ' in the thirty-fourth line, the words ' cause a land surveyor duly licensed to act as such in the province or an engineer to,' and after the word ' respectively ' in the thirty-eighth line, the words 'and duly certified by such surveyor or engineer.'


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to, and section as amended agreed to.
On section 144-authority to certain persons to sell and convey lands to the company.
The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: This section has the expression ' femes-covert.' That should be amended, Mr. Chairman, by doubling the ' m ' making it ' femmes-covert.'


Robert Laird Borden: I think that as it is in the Bill Is the proper way of expelling the old legal word.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Would it not be better to use the word ' married women,' for that is what the expression means.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: It means a woman under the authority of her husband.


Robert Laird Borden: With us, ' feme-covert' means a woman during the period of her marriage. In the old law French, I think there is only one ' m,' though there are two in the modern French word.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: It is evidently not modern French, for then it would be ' eouvert,' not ' covert.'


Robert Laird Borden: It is the old Norman-Frencli expression.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Better leave it as it is.
Progress reported.
At six o'clock, House took r?cess.


Hon. Mr. BLAIR.: After Recess.



CONSIDERED IN COMMITTEE-THIRD READING.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 112) to incorporate the Canada Industrials Corporation, Limited. - Mr. Thompson.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 189) to Incorporate the Canadian Telephone and Telegraph Company.-Mr. Birkett.
Bill (No. 191, from the Senate) to incorporate the Home Bank of Canada.-Mr. Russell.
Bill (No. 192) to enable the city of Winnipeg to utilize the Assinibolne river water power.-Mr. Puttee.

[Stage Direction]
On the Order being called for-
House in Committee on Bill (No. 04) to incorporate the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company.-Mr. McCarthy.
Mr. BELL.: Mr. Speaker, I call your attention to the fact that the hon. member for Montmorency (Mr. Casgrain) has given notice of an amendment to this Bill, and he is not in his place to-night. There are very few members in the House, and as this is a very important Bill I think this should be allowed to stand.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: 1 notice that the hon. gentleman in charge of the Bill is not present, and as nobody is authorized to take it up, I think it ought to stand.
Mr. BELL moved the adjournment of the debate.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and debate adjourned.

[Stage Direction]
House again in Committee of Supply.
Marine Department-salaries and allowances to light keepers, $238,000.
['Yes.']
Adam Carr Bell: There is an increase here, and no doubt the minister will explain it. I think the hon. minister should give some explanation.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: We have to provide for salaries of light keepers for lights now under construction, including Pelee and Belle Isle. Those two will cost something over ?2.000. There are others for which salaries will have to be provided
Mr. TAYLOR, Where are the other lights being constructed ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: 
Mr. CLARKE.: to make the St. Lawrence navigable by night as well as by day. Appended to this article is a list of the vessels damaged by running ashore during the season of navigation, from June 1 to December 8, 1902. It is a very unsatisfactory record. The ships damaged were :
' Sahara,' ' Indiana,' ' Monteagle,' ' Kildona,' ' Manchester Importer,' ' Numidian-,' * Manchester Engineer,' ' Iberian,' [DOT] Loango,' ' Ben-gore Head,' ' Sicilian.'
That is rather a ghastly showing of vessels which have come to grief in the river. The first vessel entering the gulf this season also came to grief.


The MINISTER OP MARINE AND FISHERIES.: The second.


Edward Frederick Clarke: In view of the prejudice which seems to exist in certain quarters, in view of the discrimination in insurances, the committee are entitled to much fuller information than we have yet received as to what the intentions of the government are. There is a condition of things existing which ought not to be allowed to continue any longer. I could implement the citations I have given by many more statements of a similar character, which have appeared during the last six months on the condition of the St. Lawrence in the English newspapers. I hope that the hon. minister will give us more information as to what work he proposes carrying out to improve navigation.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: I shall have much pleasure in furnishing all the necessary information to the committee. But it must be borne in mind that early in the session there was laid on the Table the report of the Department of Marine and Fisheries of last year. This voluminous report goes into all the details connected with the improvements suggested in the way of aids to navigation That report can be consulted by hon. members.


Edward Frederick Clarke: DoesK that contain the finding of that commissioner appointed by the hon. gentleman's predecessor ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: No.


Edward Frederick Clarke: I mean the report of Captain Spain, who was appointed to inquire into the causes of the accidents last year.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: I was coming to that. I was a member of a delegation from the board of trade, the Harbour Commissioners, the Corn Exchange and the shipping interests, which waited on the government and made very strong representations to the then Minister of Marine and Fisheries, Sir Louis Davies. A very long discussion then took place, at which the representatives of the underwriters were present. We went over Mr. CLARKE.
the whole ground, and it was decided to proceed as rapidly as possible with the improvements of the St. Lawrence route, both above and below Quebec, and from Montreal to the great lakes.


Edward Frederick Clarke: What do you contemplate doing during the coming season ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: I have just read the list of the lights that are under construction in 1903. The fact that these aids were installed during 1902 and are being added to this year has already had the effect of inspiring more confidence in the underwriters. Hon. members know that the Canadian Pacific Railway have been enabled to secure insurance of their fleet at a very considerable reduction on former rates.* It is argued, of course, that the Canadian Pacific administration enjoy so much the confidence of the underwriters that, even if the improvements to navigation were not what they should be, they would receive the reduction. As a matter of fact, it is well established now that these improvements having been made, they have made the St. Lawrence route a great deal safer than it was before.	.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Does the hon. minister know whether the Canadian Pacific Railway are going to have their steamers brought in and out of the St. Lawrence by the same system of pilotage that exists at the present time ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: The law' provides that certain regulations shall be followed, and I think they cannot do otherwise. But the fact is that the six w'recks that took place early in 1902 were fully investigated, and wre have in the department a full report-a very voluminous report-on each and every one, made by Captain Spain, aided by experts. That report is to the effect that not one of these accidents was due to want of aid or improvement in the channel.


Edward Frederick Clarke: To what were they attributed ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: To fault of the pilots or carelessness of the captains.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Is not that document of sufficient importance to justify the hon. minister in having it printed and distributed ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: It was my intention to have that document printed and distributed. It is of great importance.


Edward Frederick Clarke: It is a pity it wras not distributed before the estimates w'ere considered. The hon. gentleman made some improvements in Belle Isle light. But I see, in the ' Times,' from w'hich I have taken some extracts, certain extraordinary statements with regard to the location of that light and the difficulty navigators have in
413 T
JUjSTE 5, 1903
picking it up. I can send the hon. gentleman the statement. We should have Captain Spain's report before us. that we may have the benefit of his conclusions. It would be better that one of these items stand, then have that document printed and circulated so that we may discuss the items intelligently. Notwithstanding these Improvements that the bon. gentleman and his predecessors have made in the navigation of the St. Lawrence, I find in the Montreal * Herald ' of to-day the following :
Quebec, June 5.-The Norwegian steamer Tro-hector, 3,400 tons register, went on the rocks yesterday at the mouth of the Saguenay, and lies firm in her position, with two fore compartments full of water.
Navigation has been opened for only about six weeks, yet in that short time we have had two accidents. I think the importance of the subject and the necessity of our knowing-if we are to discuss these estimates intelligently-where we stand, justify us in asking for ail the information necessary on this subject. The hon. gentleman has not yet given us all the information we have a right to expect with regard to his plan, and it seems to me dereliction that Captain Spain's report has not been presented to the House before now.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: Surely, the hon. gentleman (Mr. Clarke) does not think that I should bring here all the documents in the department concerning this question. There are volumes of these papers. If there is any particular information the hon. gentleman requires, I am ready to furnish it. and furnish it in the shortest possible time. But it surely is not fair to ask me to be ready with all these documents particularly when I am ready to give all the information and have promised that the documents that he refers to shall be printed and distributed to the members of the House.


Edward Frederick Clarke: I drew the attention of the committee to the fact that the hon. minister's predecessor was so impressed- as I presume-with the importance of obtaining information with regard to the unusual number of disasters last year that he appointed Captain Spain to inquire into the subject and report. I think we cannot intelligently discuss items for the improvement of the navigation of the St. Lawrence, we cannot intelligently vote sums of money to be spent on improvements during the next twelve months, unless we have that report before us. We do not know what the recommendations are, what the causes of danger are, how these accidents might have been avoided or what steps the minister intends to take to avoid such accidents in the future. As the hon. minister has not seen fit to print and distribute that document among the members of the House, we have a right to expect a pretty full digest, in the form of a speech, of the contents of that report. Of course, we do not
expect the hon. gentleman to have these reports all piled up about him, but we do expect that, when he asks votes for such a large expenditure, he will give us full information as to how and where the money is to be expended and what he hopes to accomplish by the expenditure of it. These requests are reasonable and we cannot discuss these matters intelligently without that information.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: The information in the department is what I have already stated to the hon. gentleman-that not one of these wrecks that took place last year was due to the faults of the route. That is the effect of Captain Spain's report. I have told him also that I am ready to have this report printed and distributed. But it seems to me that that should be perfectly satisfactory. Now, as regards what has been recommended by the committee of Lloyds there is a large correspondence in the department, beginning in the month of September. There are suggestions made by Captains Wm. Owen, Stewart, Webster, Williams, Murray and Sheldrake for the improvement of the navigation of the St. Lawrence.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Are these the recommendations of Lloyd's agents ?


The MINISTER OF SIARINE AND FISHERIES.: These are the recommendations made by a certain number of captains who were chosen specially to submit recommendations ; but they coincided entirely with what the agents of Lloyd's recommended.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Was it the department that asked these captains to make recommendations ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: No, they volunteered, at the request of the shipping interest to make suggestions. The department was very glad to receive these suggestions as a means of assisting in our work for the improvement of the St. Lawrence channel.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Were the recommendations of Lloyd's agents and the captains-
The S1INISTER OF SIARINE AND FISHERIES. They were perfectly in harmony.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Did the officers of the department consult with them on what they recommended ?
The 3IINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES. I will read the report:
Lloyd's, September 24, 1902.
To the Honourable James Sutherland,
Minister of Marine and Fisheries,
Ottawa, Canada.
Sir,-I am directed by the committee of Lloyd's to inform you that the committee and several underwriters at Lloyd's interested in the trade writh Canada received, with much

pleasure, the visit of the Hon. Sir W. Mulock, Postmaster General of Canada, and the Hon. W. S. Fielding, Canadian Minister of Finance, and heard with great interest the remarks those gentlemen addressed to the meeting which was held here on the 31st July. For your information, I beg to forward herewith a copy of the report of that meeting.
It was clearly pointed out at this meeting that the committee of Lloyd's in their official capacity have no control over the rates of insurance charged by underwriters and that these rates are governed by the ordinary laws of competition. This competition is constant, and effectually prevents any premium permanently rising above the point required for the risks incident to the business.
I am. however, instructed to beg that you will be so good as to inform the government of Canada that the committee of Lloyd's are anxious to do everything in their power to assist them in their efforts to improve the navigation of the St. Lawrence. With this end in view my committee have taken the opinions of a number of steamship owners and others interested in the trade.
The general opinion seems to be that the navigation of the St. Lawrence will always be difficult on account of climatic conditions. The gulf has to be approached along the coast of Newfoundland, where fogs are frequent, ice not uncommon and where the change of variation is very rapid. A ship's position is often very doubtful as the thick weather not only prevents astronomical observations being obtained, but also renders it more difficult to correct compass errors, a matter of the first importance alwavs, but particularly so in waters where there is a rapid change of variation. It is stated that the variation is as much as seven degrees in the short distance from Belle Isle to Anticosti Island.
It has been (suggested :-
1.	That a complete survey of those portions of the gulf and River St. Lawrence (not yet thoroughly surveyed and chartered) should be made.
That is being done.
2.	That the standard of efficiency of the pilots should be of the highest, constantly and rigidly maintained, and that compulsory pilotage might with advantage be extended to a point beyond Anticosti.
This question is under consideration by the department. I hope, before the end of the session, to submit amendments of the Pilotage Act that will satisfy, as much as possible, the shipping interest in this matter.
3.	That the lights in the St. Lawrence, which, with few exceptions, have an average range of fourteen or fifteen miles, should be improved and that the lights and fog horns should have a more distinctive character.
4.	That lightships with good fog signals should be established at turning points on the coast so that a navigator could ascertain his position without going too close to the land in thick weather, such points, for instance, as the east point of Anticosti, Rich Point, west ccast of Newfoundland, the Bird Rocks, Cape Ray and Miquelon Island.
That is being done.
5.	It has also been suggested that better graving dock accommodation should be provided.


Hon. Mr. PREFONTAINE.: The graving dock question is being studied.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Graving docks are not a pressing necessity.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: L understand that. I am reading what this committee have recommended.
The committee trust that the suggestions made above may be of assistance to the Canadian government in their endeavours to improve the navigation of the St. Lawrence, success, in which, would doubtless have an Important effect upon the maritime trade of Canada.
I have the honour to be, sir,
Your most obedient servant,
(Sgd.) JOHN B. WATSON,
For the Secretary.
The following are the suggestions made hy Captains Wm. Owen, Stewart, Webster, ,T. Williams, Murray and Sheldrake for improving the facilities for navigation of the St. Lawrence :
Rich Point. Should have a fog signal and the light improved.
Flower Ledges. Should have a powerful fog horn.
Heath Point. Interval at present fifteen minutes should not be greater than every two minutes. (Fog signal).
South Point. Fog signal at present a whistle. Should be something more powerful.
Fame Point. Should have a powerful fog signal.
Father Point. Fog signal requires improving.
Cock Point. Should have a gas and bell buoy.
Cape Norman. Fog signal at present not nearly powerful enough.
Bird Rock. Fog signal at present every fifteen minutes, should be less.
Sambro Fog Signal. Should be improved and the interval between bhe sounding of it should be lessened.
Cape Ray. Whistle not nearly powerful enough.
Halifax harbour buoys. Not nearly large erougb, want considerably improving.
Cape Whittee. Should have a light.
St. Peter's Bay. Should have a light and fog horn.
Little Mecattina. Should have a ilight and fog horn.
Matane. Should have fog signal.
Little Metis. Should have a fog signal.
All the captains urge there should be a chart of the Belle Isle straits taking in sixty miles round Belle Isle. At present when in the vicinity of Belle Isle they have to consult three charts all of a different scale.
On the 13th November, 1902, the chief engineer of the department made the following report:
Ottawa, November 13, 1902. To the Honourable James Sutherland,
Minister of Marine and Fisheries.
Sir,-As directed, I beg to submit the following report on suggestions for improvements in aids to navigation in Canadian waters, submitted by Sir Alfred L. Jones, of Elder Dempster & Co., London, England.
In consequence of my almost continuous absence from Ottawa since Sir Alfred Jones'

letter was received, and in consequence of immense pressure of worl? whenever I was here, in connection with the radical improvements we are making in aids to navigation this year, it has been physically impossible for me sooner to give to the letter and its inelosures the attention it deserved. I have now gone carefully through it and examined the charts submitted with the recommendations, and am impressed with the knowledge of the needs of the St. Lawrence route displayed in the correspondence and pleased to know that in very many cases the conclusions reached by the department have anticipated the suggestions ' made by the officials of the Elder Dempster Line.
It is always an advantage for government officers to obtain the views of practical seamen in considering proposed changes in aids to navigation, though seamen cannot always be posted on the practical difficulties in the way of carrying out some of their ideas.
Taking up in order the suggestions made by six of the Elder Dempster captains for improvements in the St. Lawrence, I beg to submit the following notes :
Fog alarm at Rich Point-
The difficulty in maintaining a fog alarm here is that there are reefs lying outside the point, across which, sound will not penetrate. Many years ago a steam fog alarm was established at this station, but the acoustic conditions were found to be so unfavourable that it was removed and utilized at another point. I fear that for this reason the re-establishment of a fog alarm here would be more likely to lead a vessel into danger than to help her.
Fog alarm at Flower Ledge-
This light station is immediately opposite to Greenly Island and Point Amour stations, on the other side of the Strait of Belle Isle, at each of which a fog alarm is already in operation.
The question of providing a fog alarm at this station has been considered many times, but there are quite as many masters, of opinion that, three fog alarms in operation within sound of each other would be more likely to confuse than to help ships, as there are in favour of an additional alarm. The ' Labrador ' side of the strait, on which the existing alarms are maintained, is certainly the more foggy of the two. It is for this reason that the department has not already established a fog alarm on Flower Ledge.
Heath Point-
It would be very difficult, if not dangerous to the operator, to fire an explosive fog signal as often as every two minutes. The interval of fifteen minutes at this station has been reduced to ten and to five minutes whenever a vessel is heard off the station. However, it has for a long time been known that no fog alarm on the Island of Anticosti could be effective, in consequence of the wide extent of shoal water extending off the south shore ; this so disturbs the homogeniety of the air that all our fog alarms on Anticosti have been utter failures, and the fault is one inherent in the locality, which no increase in the power of the alarm would in any way remove. Recognizing this difficulty, the department has decided to establish a lightship in deep water off East Point, altogether outside of the Anticosti shore, and a contract has been let for the construction of a suitable ship, at a cost exceeding $100,000, and we hope that the vessel will
be on h.er station in good time ne>?t season. She will be provided with the strongest modern fog alarm machinery, and will greatly lessen the danger at the dreaded east end of Anticosti.
South Point-
The fog signal here is already a ten-inch whistle of the most powerful type, a signal that gives good satisfaction at many other stations. The fault here is exactly the same as explained above, and is common to all stations on the Island of Anticosti. There is absolutely no remedy for this failure in sound signals due to local atmospheric conditions.
Fame Point-
A fog signal has just been established at this station, and it is proposed to greatly increase the power of the light here.
Father Point-
A seven inch Scotch siren is now being installed at this station, and the power of the light has just been increased at least ten-fold.
Cock Point-
To maintain a gas buoy effectively it is necessary that it should be watched constantly, and that a tender equipped with gas compressors should be able to visit the buoy frequently. A gas buoy liable to be left without this constant supervision would be often out, and thus more dangerous than no gas buoy at all.
In consequence of the remoteness of Cock Point from any headquarters of a gas buoy tender, it would be impossible for us to maintain an efficient service under present conditions. However, the representations made, with regard to this matter will receive further attention, and if anything can be done to improve the present buoy, it will be done next season.
Cock Point should not be a danger to a carefully navigated vessel, as vessels ought to give the shore here a good berth outside of Cock Point.
Cape Norman-
The trouble with the fog signal at this station arises from the fact that there are reefs between the fog signal and the channel, which break up the sound. That the trouble is not with the instrument may be inferred from the fact that the signal is quite as powerful as that at Cape Bauld, only a few miles distant, which has always given great satisfaction.	It is
proposed to differentiate between the Cape Norman signal and that at Cape Bauld.
Bird Rocks-
In consequence of the difficulty of landing supplies on this island, where there is no shelter, and all goods landed must be hoisted out of small boats up a perpendicular cliff, it is practically impossible to establish a steam fog alarm here, and it is very difficult to fire explosive bombs very much oftener than they are now fired, namely, every five minutes, when vessels are heard in the vicinity of the island. The danger here is not great, because the island is steep too on all sides, and no vessel can be in its vicinity without being aware of the fact. It is intended to greatly increase the strength of the light at this station next season, and to render it more distinctive.
Sambro fog signal-
This is another of those unfortunate station* where the trouble is with the acoustics in its vicinity, sound being absolutely unable to pene-

trate the non-homogeneous air that always covers the reefs lying all around the island. When we had a steam whistle at this point it was utterly condemned as inefficient; yet the same machine, when removed to Chebucto Head, where it is now in operation, has proved an eminently satisfactory fog signal. The only safeguard for mariners in fog is to give Sambro a very wide berth. It matters not whether signals are given every fifteen minutes or every fifteen seconds, they would be ineffective, and any vessel relying on hearing fog signals at Sambro Island and shaping a course to hear them, would be more likely to be wrecked than to be guided by them.
Cape Ray-
I am afraid that the trouble with the fog alarm at this station is also the acoustic defects of the locality, but as this has not been proved, and as we are anxious to do everything possible to improve aids to navigation. the most powerful fog signal practicable will be tried here before the effort to make the warning a serviceable one is abandoned. Halifax Harbour-
The whole question of improving the aids to naiigation in Halifax Harbour is now under the consideration of myself and of our local officials in Halifax. Some improvements in the buoys have already been made. Considerable improvements in the lights and any further improvements necessary in the buoys will be carried out.
I may state that these improvements have been carried out at Halifax, and that the gentlemen representing shipping interests of Halifax have passed a resolution complimenting tlie department on what has oe"u done.
My impression is that the buoys used in Halifax are the largest now in service in the Dominion, and that their apparent want of size is due to the great distance at which they are observed rather than to their real smallness. However, this suggestion will have further consideration.
Cape Whittle, St. Peters Bay, Little Mec-catina-
These three points are on the Labrador shore of the Gulf of St. Lawrence, a coast bristling with hidden dangers, and the department has heretofore made a special point of refusing to place aids to navigation on this shore because it is desirable to discourage vessels from attempting to coast it. At none of the places named can a station be established that would not have reefs lying three or four miles outside of it. The consequence is that a vessel trying to make any of these aids would be in danger of wreck on some of these hidden rocks. I am strongly of opinion that it is much safer to force mariners to run from the east end of Anticosti directly to Point Rich or Greenly Island, than to attempt to coast the north shore. This is the more desirable, because fog is more prevalent on the north shore of the gulf than on the Newfoundland shore.
Matane-
A first rate fog siren will be established here next year. The machinery for this alarm is already constructed.
Little Metis-
I very much fear that, in consequence of the Hon. Mr. PREPONTAINE.
long line of reefs exisyng outside the shore at this station, it will be impossible to make the sound of a fog alarm penetrate to the channel. This acoustic difficulty I have reported several times, and feel as well satisfied as a man can be, without actually experimenting, that a fog alarm here would be a failure, and therefore a snare to a sailor rather than a help.
The chart of the Strait of Belle Isle is a matter in the hands of the Hydrographer of the Admiralty, and not of the Canadian government. I have no doubt that representations from the shipping interests of Great Britain . made to the Lords of the Admiralty would result in the production of a chart such as desired by the Elder Dempster Company's captains. I know that what they s*ate with regard to this matter is perfectly true, and I suggest that this department join in representing to the Admiralty the desirability of having a large scale chart of the approach of Belle Isle from the outside.
As the Admiralty is now engaged in a resurvey of Newfoundland, I am sure they would the more readily grant such a request.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Whose report is that ?
The	MINISTER	OF	MARINE	AND
FISHERIES. It is the report of the chief engineer, Mr. Anderson.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Sent in reply to the letter with some inclosures of Sir Alfred Jones ?
The	MINISTER	OF	MARINE	AND
FISHERIES. Yes.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Is not Sir Alfred Jones' letter there ?
The	MINISTER	OF	MARINE	AND
FISHERIES. I have not the letter of Sir Alfred Jones, but as I remarked, the engineer goes over every point that has been suggested by Sir Alfred Jones and the captains who were delegated to make suggestions.
The	MINISTER	OF	JUSTICE	(Hon.
Charles Fitzpatrick.) I would like if the hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries could tell me where the ' Sahara ' was wrecked, at what season of the year she was wrecked, and whether or not there was a pilot on board ?	*
The	MINISTER	OF	MARINE	AND
FISHERIES. She had no pilot on board, and she simply went out of her course.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: I can scarcely understand why it is that so much complaint is made about the condition of the St. Lawrence route when my hon. friend bears in mind that this ship came up with a valuable cargo of rice in April or May, and instead of staying at pilotage ground, as she ought to have done, proceeded without a pilot. When she reached Sydney, the captain notified the agent in Quebec that the vessel was coming up and asked him to have a pilot ready, but instead of waiting at the pilotage ground the vessel came on up towards Rimouski and ran right on a rock. My information is to the effect that

the captain had never been on the St. Lawrence before. He came up in the early spring and did not take the trouble to get a pilot on board and the vessel ran on the rocks. There is another case of a ship, the name of which I do not recollect at this moment, that ran on the west point of Anti-c-osti Island, a ship that was going down the St. Lawrence and supposed to be going to [DOT]sea, but the first thing we heard that the ship was aground on the west point of Anticosti. Investigations were held into the cause of these accidents, and I think it would be important not only for the information of the House, but for the information of the public, and especially for the information of the underwriters in London, that the results of these inquiries should be published so as to show whether or not these accidents have been caused exclusively by the conditions existing on the St. Lawrence route, or by defective equipment of the ships, or whether they have been caused by any defect or neglect on the part of the captains. I remember that last summer I attended an inquiry at Quebec. where it was shown that the captain, while going through the Traverse, one of the most dangerous points on the St. Lawrence. thought it proper to go down and go to bed and leave bis ship under the control of the pilot and one of the subordinate officers. If, under these circumstances, accidents happen the underwriters must not be surprised, and it seems to me that it would be important to know all the facts and circumstances connected with each one of these wrecks so that we may know whether the fault is attributable to any defect in the condition of the St. Lawrence route or to the unskilful mariner who is in charge of the vessel, or to the fact of negligence on the part of the mariner. I think it will be shown in most cases that the accident is more the result of the imperfect equipment of the ship, or of negligence on the part of the captain, than as a result of the conditions of the St. Lawrence route. Let me illustrate what I mean. Last summer the ' Ariadne,' Admiral Douglas' vessel, came up from Halifax to Quebec. The sailing captain started from Halifax and brought his ship to Quebec on his own chart-a vessel drawing thirty feet of water-without the slightest difficulty.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Is it not a fact that admirals in the imperial service are obliged to do that ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: In the imperial service they have proper officers and properly equipped vessels, and when they came to the St. Lawrence they navigated the river without difficulty. The only accident that happened on the St. Lawrence route to an imperial vessel was in the case of a ship going from Quebec to Montreal and the accident happened when there was a pilot in charge. She had just left the harbour of Quebec when she ran aground.
I agree with all that the hon. gentleman said in respect to the improvement of the aids to navigation in the lower St. Lawrence. It is important to do all that we can do to improve the condition of the St. Lawrence route, so that that great waterway may be from the great lakes to the ocean as perfectly equipped as any great waterway can be. Nature has given us the greatest waterway on the continent and it only remains for us to so equip and improve that waterway that we may be able to avail ourselves of the great advantages that may come to it. We must not only spend our money in the way of dredging, but it is also important that we shall provide those aids to navigation which will enable the mariners to take advantage of the work we are doing. I venture to make the suggestion that we ought to take advantage of the information afforded by the officers in our department. These officers are competent men and we should also at the same time, if necessary-and I offer this suggestion because of the interest I have in that part of the country-consult the Lloyds people and say that we would be willing to pay the expenses of any competent man they would suggest to come out and visit the work we are doing and make such suggestions as they thought necessary in order that we might meet all reasonable demands of the underwriters. I would also suggest that when an accident occurs we should thoroughly probe the cause of the accident, so that we may know whether or not it was caused through any defect in the St. Lawrence route, or whether through the defective equipment of the vessel or defective seamanship. It is important in cases of accidents to know exactly what has been the cause of the accident, and I think that when we hare done that we will show that the St. Lawrence has been very much maligned in the past and that a great many accidents that have occurred have not been due to any defect in the St. Lawrence route, but that they have been due to defects in the equipment of vessels and to the imperfect knowledge of the seamen passing through that route.


Mr.   CLARICE@: I may say that the hon. Minister of Justice is to be congratulated upon coming to our assistance on this side of the House in demanding that the information which we have been trying to obtain from the hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries shall be forthcoming as soon as possible.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: There is no politics in this question.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Certainly not, and we could not have approached it on this side of the House with any desire to make political capital, because, in the few remarks I have made, I declared that we were quite willing to vote any reasonable sum to equip that route and to make it the best route on

this side of the Atlantic. I think the kon. minister can appreciate the difficulties which landlubbers like myself labour under iu intelligently voting the appropriation that is now asked for by the department when the fullest possible information is not vouchsafed to us as to what these expenditures are for and why they are being asked for. The hon. minister has drawn attention to the fact that the injury which happened the steamship ' Sahara ' was duo to the circumstance that she had not a pilot on board and that the captain was practically in ignorance of the route.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: This report will be printed and distributed. I am able to state from the information of the officers of the department that a separate document will be printed and distributed because the report of the Minister of Marine and Fisheries contains Captain Spain's report, dated 23rd of September.


Edward Frederick Clarke: I must confess that I was not aware of that fact and I am very glad to know it. I have read from two editions of the London ' Times ' unfavourable references to the St. Lawrence route. I did so for the purpose of drawing the attention ot the committee and of the hon. minister to the fact that the route is being misrepresented and that unreasonable insurance charges are being made upon vessels navigating it. It is of the highest importance, as the Minister of Justice has pointed out, that when an accident occurs the causes should be inquired into forthwith and the blame placed on the responsible shoulders. If wide pub-lidty were given to the findings of the commissioners. the black eyes that the St. Lawrence route receives from time to time would be less frequent. Our desire is not to make political capital, but to have at our disposal all the data jn possession of the department' so that we may vote these items intelligently. Can we have that lettei from Sir Alfred Jones.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: Certainly,, it will be laid on the Table.


Edward Frederick Clarke: I draw attention to the fact that although navigation has only been opened a few weeks, whatever may be the cause, there have been two accidents, and not to large ships but to moderate sized vessels. I hope the minister will have an immediate investigation into both. It is sometimes said that the pilotage system is defective.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: Very.


Edward Frederick Clarke: The Minister of Justice holds that sometimes those in charge of the navigation of the ship are to blame, and that state of things can certainly be remedied.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: If my hon. friend (Mr. Clarke) will look at the Mr. CLARKE.
plans that have been prepared within the last year or two in reference to the lower St. Lawrence, he will see that a comprehensive scheme is ready for endeavouring to supply those aids to navigation which are so necessary. Last year over $200,000 was expended in the carrying out of this scheme, and if we proceed on these lines in the future we will soon equip the St. Lawrence as it ought to have been equipped years ago. But that is not all. The pilots are an essential factor in the navigation of the St. Lawrence and it seems to me that the sooner we take effective control over the pilots the better it is going to be. It would be absolutely useless for us to expend our money on aids to navigation if we have a defective pilotage system.
Some hou. MEMBERS. Hear, hear.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: The sooner that is realized the better for all concerned. I make the statement, subject to correction, that the pilots are not examined with respect to coloured blindness except only once a year. There is nothing more important than that the vision of the pilot should be perfect; not only that it should be perfect with respect to distance, but also with respect to colour so much depends upon the colour of the light, not only the port and starboard lights of the ship, but the lights on the shore. It is well known that railway locomotive engineers are examined every two or three months to test their sight as to colour. It is as essential, if not more essential, that the vision of the pilot should be perfect than the vision of the railway engineer. If my hon. friend looks at the rules that exist on the Mersey he will notice the great caution that is exercised there with respect to the pilotage system. On the St. Lawrence where we have equal opportunities to afford a safe way for navigation as they have on the Mersey and the English channel generally, it seems to me we ought be able to do for the St. Lawrence what the English authorities have been able to do for the navigation of the English channel and the Mersey. I trust that we may be able to follow their example as closely as we can.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES. .: If the hon. gentleman (Mr. Clarke) refers to the report of the Marine Department, 1902, pages 27 to 40, he will find the reports on the accidents that have occurred in the St. Lawrence.


Edward Frederick Clarke: When was Captain Spain appointed.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: He has been an officer of the department for many years.


Edward Frederick Clarke: I am aware, but I am advised he was appointed commissioner to inquire into these accidents last fall.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: l'es, and his report is in the blue-book. This report of Captain Spain was sent to Lloyds and to the Admiralty for which we received thanks, and the result was that the captain of the ' Sahara ' was put on trial in England and found guilty, and lost his certificate.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Was there any communication from the Elder Dempster Company concerning Belle Isle ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: Yes, and we are putting an additional light and fog alarm at the north of the island to meet that complaint.


Edward Frederick Clarke: I saw a statement from the commodore of the Elder Dempster line published 'in the ' Times ' last fall, complaining of the Belle Isle light. Was that complaint sent to the department ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: There was a special complaint and we are trying to meet it. It is contained in the communication I will lay on the Table.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Before leaving this part of the discussion I wish to express my regret that the department did not print in its annual report the results of the investigations held in Great Britain in connection with the accidents on the St. Lawrence. In almost every case where an investigation was held by the British Board of Trade it was found that the accidents were due to negligence or want of knowledge on the part of the steamships' officers. That is a thing that should be known not only on this side of the water, but on the other side as Well. If the Minister of Marine and Fisheries printed these investigations in his report it would have the effect of removing to a great extent the misrepresentations with regard to the St. Lawrence route. As I say, these English investigations show that in almost every case for the past two years, the accident was the result of incompetency or neglect on the part of the steamships' officers. I do not say that at all to imply that the aids to navigation should not be continued in the direction we have commenced, or that in every case where the system is found to be defective, a better system should not be adopted. At the same time it should be known here and throughout the world that the route is not at all to be blamed to anything like the extent which it is understood to be, both in this country and the old country.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: How
much was spent last year ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: Three hundred and twenty-two thousand dollars.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: I would like to draw the attention of the hon. member for Toronto to the report of the inquiry into eleven casualties in the St. Lawrence river. He will find that the result of this investigation is that five casualties were caused by the inexperience or carelessness of some one or more of the officers or pilots on board the ships, but in not one case was the accident caused by inefficiency or deficiency in the aids to navigation.


Andrew B. Ingram: Do I understand the ex-Miuister of Marine and Fisheries regrets that the English report has not been published or circulated ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I think the department intended to have published the results of the investigation in Great Britain, which was furnished to us in a return from the Board of Trade, under whose auspices these investigations are held. I think it would be a good investment and a proper thing for the House to order that that report should be printed as a return and distributed both here and in Great Britain.


Andrew B. Ingram: We have the findings of Mr. Spain, the commissioner, but we have not the evidence before us. In the report there is a very remarkable statement made, which I cannot altogether fathom. It is as follows :
There appears to be, I regret to say, a certain amount of indifference in regard to these inquiries on the part of some shipowners when the conduct of their own officers is involved.
It seems curious to me that the owners are so careless about the officers they have managing their vessels, when, by reason of these accidents occurring on the St. Lawrence river, their insurance rates are higher than they ought to be. I would like to see the evidence that bears out that statement. Then, I find in the report the following statement :
It will be noticed that in all but two instances the captain was found in fault, and either his certificate was suspended or he was reprimanded.
I cannot understand Iiow the owners can be so careless as to have these incompetent captains. It is very important that we should have the evidence before us, so that we could see whether it bears out such extraordinary statements. The hon. Minister of Justice has stated that the accident to the ' Sahara ' was caused by having no pilot on board. The vessel called at the point where the pilot was supposed to be, and the charge made against the captain was that he did not wait a sufficient length of time to get the pilot. We have nothing to show what detained the pilot on the arrival of the boat. Why was he not there,
| if that was the place where he should be,
1 for the captain to pick him up ? It is
4151 ,

shown in this case that the captain used precautions. It was vei*y foggy, and his boat was going at a slow rate of speed. I see another statement to the effect that the captain was not conversant with the waters he was navigating.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: I will give the hon. gentleman an example of that. There were two accidents a short time ago in the channel of Lake St. Peter, between Quebec and Montreal. The first accident was of no consequence. The vessel simply touched and went on. The pilot, although required by the rules to report, never reported.


Edward Frederick Clarke: What happened to the pilot'?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: He is going to be proceeded against. We discovered that from the report handed to the department a few days ago. Another vessel 'The Carrigan Head,' went ashore near the same point. It was found that she was out of her course, because the buoys had been displaced. It was probable that they had been dragged by the first vessel when she had grounded. It is also probable that the second accident had happened partly through the fault of the light-keeper in not reporting to the department on seeing that the buoys were not in place. The result was that the light-keeper was dismissed, and replaced by a competent man. It is proposed by the department, in order to avoid any such accidents in future, to have a small boat to patrol the channel, especially between Quebec and Montreal, as is done between Montreal and Kingston, to ascertain every twenty-four or forty-eight hours the state of the buoys, and to see that they have not been dragged or displaced. That has been suggested to the department, as a result of these two last accidents, so that the department is perfectly alive to the situation. With regard to the aids to navigation, we know the sentiment of the House. There is no politics in this matter. Everybody agrees that, in the interest of trade and commerce and of navigation, the route of the St. Lawrence should be made perfectly safe. I may state that it is the intention of the department this season to have the channel between Montreal and Sorel, a length of forty-five miles, perfectly lighted, so that in that stretch the navigation of the river will be as safe during night as during day. It will probably be impossible for two or three years to have all the necessary aids to navigation between Sorel and Quebec, on account of the channel at certain points especially at Cap a La Roche, not having the proper width; and not offering security to steamers to navigate that channel during the night. But between Sorel and Montreal, by the 1st of July, or at the latest by the 1st of August, the channel will be perfectly lighted on both sides.


Andrew B. Ingram: I quite agree with the hon. gentleman that there should be no politics in this matter at all; and, so far as I am concerned, there is no politics. It is a very serious question, and one that has been discussed for years, and I do not think we should do anything to discourage trade from going over the St. Lawrence route. When a statement of this character is made, I would like to know, whether the owners of the vessels are ever present at these investigations ^nd in what manner they show their indifference ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: I have pointed out the fact that the owners were informed that the vessels had touched at that point, but rather than bo troubled by an investigation or detained, they preferred not to mention it, and the vessel went back without any investigation being held.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: With respect to the indifference of the owners, my hon. friend will bear in mind that the great majority of the owners reside on the other side of the water and also that a great number of the steamers are owned by many people. A ship is divided into sixty-four shares, and in many cases there are as many as sixty-four owners to one ship. The agent at Quebec or at Montreal represents the owners. When an accident occurs, in nine cases out of ten, the vessel is abandoned to the underwriters and the owners pay no more attention to the matter. They simply wash their hands of the whole affair and leave it on the shoulders of the unfortunate underwriters. Last year I am informed, and my information can be verified by the hon. member for Toronto (Mr. Brock), that a vessel of the value of $500,000 came to the St. Lawrence aud was penalized to this extent, that the owner paid for insurance, $5,000, over and above the ordinary rates to American ports, and as the vessel made five trips, he paid $25,000 additional insurance. That meant $25,000 out of the pockets of the consumers and the producers of this country.


Edward Frederick Clarke: The worst feature is the damage done to the reputation of the route.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: In addition, my hon. friend will bear this in mind, that investigation can only be held by the Department of Marine and Fisheries for the purpose of finding out what takes place in the St. Lawrence. The department has no control over the captain's certificate. That must be dealt with by the board of trade in England. To show how careful these investigations held by Commander Spain were, let me point out that the results of his investigations have been confirmed in almost every instance by the board of trade in England. Ship masters have had their certificates taken from them or been suspended or reprimanded in conformity with


Andrew B. Ingram: Commander Spain's report. I may add that I have had some experience of his investigations and have always found him most competent for the purpose. There is a line of steamships which has been coming to the St. Lawrence for the last twelve years-the Holme Line, of which Kennedy and McLean are the agents. These men exercise particular care in the choice of their captains, and the result has followed that there has not been a single accident to one of their steamers during all that period. My hon. friend should bear in mind also that the vessels which come to the St. Lawrence, with the exception of a few regular liners, are tramp steamers. They are under the control of masters who are not competent. Two thirds of them have not the requisite experience and capacity to guard against the difficulties attendant on river navigation. You have in the St. Lawrence, not only the difficulties connected with the shoals, rocks and reefs, but with the currents, which is one of the most serious difficulties you can meet in a river. In addition you have these other difficulties, resulting from the immense mass of iron deposits on both sides of the St. Lawrence, and in consequence of which you never can tell whether your compass is true or not, so that you have to exercise the greatest precaution because of the effect on the compass of these iron deposits. Therefore you require competent men, but all these difficulties can be overcome by the exercise of care and skill. The St. Lawrence can be made as safe a route as exists anywhere in the world. You have no difficulties there on that route that you have not got on the English channel and the river Mersey.	*
-


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: Hear, hear. I agree.


Edward Frederick Clarke: 
Edward Frederick Clarke: I was not aware that the report of captain Spain was printed in the report of the Marine and Fisheries Department. I note what the hon. Minister of Justice said with regard to the findings of Commander Spain and also the very high character which he gives him which, no doubt is well merited. Let me draw the hon. minister's attention to what is said in that report:
1.	These five casualties were not caused by any inefficiencies or deficiencies in 'Aids to Navigation ' on board any of the steamships.
2.	These five casualties were not caused-not a complaint being heard or reported of any one light, log signal or buoy-by any inefficiencies or deficiencies in the ' Aids to Navigation ' on the route of the river and Gulf of St. Lawrence.
_ 3. These five casualties were caused by the inexperience or carelessness of some one or more of the captains, or officers, or pilots.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: The pilots were punished in every case.
Mr. CLARKE (reading.)
We recommend that owners only employ careful. experienced captains and officers ; and also that the pilotage system of the St. Lawrence be put under government control.
Now, the Minister of Justice, discussing this item, has pointed out that many of these accidents are due to the inexperience or inefficiency of the officers navigating these ships. There seems to be no doubt about that from the report of Captain Spain, and that report has been confirmed, I understand, by the formal courts held on the other side of the Atlantic. The Minister of Justice pointed out that the Department of Marine and Fisheries has nothing to do with the suspension of certificates of the officers navigating these vessels. But the department has to do with the pilotage board. The hon. minister is responsible for the efficient pilotage of this river.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: AA'e can amend the law.


Edward Frederick Clarke: If hon. gentlemen have the power to amend the law, and do not do it, then, in view of the report Captain Spain has made, and in view of the recommendation, more than once repeated, of the necessity of dealing with the pilotage system, if action is not taken by the government this session, it will be our duty to hold the government responsible for dereliction of duty.

The	MINISTER	OF	MARINE	AND
FISHERIES. We are doing it.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Doing wliat ?
The	MINISTER	OF	MARINE	AND
FISHERIES. Considering the necessary amendments.


Edward Frederick Clarke: I hope the session will not be allowed to close without the amendments being brought down for the consideration of the House.
The	MINISTER	OF	MARINE	AND
FISHERIES. Notice was given yesterday.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Three or four years ago an attempt was made by the Minister of Marine and Fisheries of that time to deal with the question of pilotage. As near as I can learn-I am not an authority on these subjects-the sooner the system of pilotage is improved the better it will be for all concerned.


Mr. BROCK.: Before this item is passed,
I would like to make a few remarks, more ifi a general way than in the way of faultfinding with the Department of Marine and Fisheries. Hon. gentlemen from the province of Quebec, especially on the St. Lawrence, must agree that enormous interests are involved in the St. Lawrence route, and the question of insurance is one of the great questions in connection with that. I think it has been pointed out by the Minister of Justice that vessels are sent out to this country on which there is very serious moral hazard, and the insurance people of England, having enormous business all over the world, do not regard the insurance on the St. Lawrence route as they do that on the route, say to New York harbour. They will insure vessels going by the St. Lawrence route that they would not insure going by the New York harbour. As the minister has said, they are called, in many cases, tramp steamers. Thr-ough this abuse, the greatest possible injustice is done to the St. Lawrence route. I wish you to understand that the extra cost of $5,000 which, as has been pointed out, is put upon a vessel going out by the St. Lawrence route, is a discrimination of the exports of this country. We have been talking very learnedly about the transportation problem, but it has been left out of account that an enormous quantity of our breadstuffs, cattle and so on, exported from this country are diverted from the St. Lawrence route, largely because it has been made unpopular through the enormous loss made in connection with incoming vessels. The insurance companies are themselves to blame, for they are taking a moral hazard that an ordinary fire insurance company would not think of taking. Another matter that has been mentioned here is that of pilotage. Hon. members may think that in speaking of this, I am a crank on the union system. I understand that these pilots have been a most tyrannical union on the St.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Lawrence, that they have controlled elections, and that we ordinary politicians hardly dare to speak a word against their interest. I am glad that the lion. Minister of Justice has the courage to say that this is a matter that should have been taken hold ot by the government, and that should be taken hold of at once, for I do not see why any number of pilots, no matter how respectable, should demand consideration that interferes with the rights and interests of all the people of Canada. They should not be allowed to make the route unpopular which should be the great route, not only for Canada, but for the western states-as it would be if it were properly managed and made as popular as it might be made. I may say that I am very strongly in favour of unions;
I am in favour of workingmen uniting to maintain their own interests, but not for the purpose of opposing the interests of others. Therefore, no union of pilots on the St. Lawrence should be allowed that is opposed to the interests of all the people of Canada. The matter mentioned by the Minister of Justice is the key-note of the system. A vessel coming into the St. Lawrence is owned by fifty or sixty people, each having a very small interest. It reminds one of the adventurers of old times-each one of these owners takes an adventure. They send a vessel out well insured. If she makes a successful voyage, they make money ; and if the voyage is unsuccessful, the St. Lawrence route gets a black eye, and the insurers put their hands in their pockets and pay the loss. That is not a proper system of business-it is not business at all-it is brigandage. Therefore, thei-e should be a' united effort in every direction to discourage that kind of thing and every inducement given to encourage legitimate business. These magnificent steamers that come to our ports should be given every inducement to come. Just as we hold out inducements to internal navigation by making our inland waters free, so we should make the St. Lawrence route as free as possible, and particularly free from the exorbitant rates of insurance which hamper those who, like myself, endeavour to bring into this country every dollar's worth of goods we can by Canadian routes and over Canadian railways. When exports are forced to go by American routes, the effect is to make our imports by Canadian routes cost us more than we ought to pay, for the return cargo is the great matter, if you hope to make the St. Lawrence route successful. We must face the problems of how to make the St. Lawrence route all that both sides of the House desire it to be, to make it as safe as it can be made, to keep it free from political influences and political appointments, and to see to it that the public in England interested in shipping are kept as well posted as possible as to the real cause of the accidents that have tended to make our route unpopular.	:


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: It may be Interesting, since I have referred to the letter of Sir Alfred Jones, that I should read it to the committee. it coincides entirely with the suggestions that have been made. Sir Alfred Jones is quite au fait with what has taken place and, as will be seen, he is quite of the opinion that the accidents are not due to the conditions of the channel. The following is the letter :-
4 Sit. Mary Axe,
London, August 29, 1902.
My Dear Sir,-While your colleagues are across here we thought it was a good opportunity to take up a question as to the possibility of improvements in the St. Lawrence with a view to the benefit of the public and ourselves as we are large underwriters on our ships and cargo. We have seen Sir William Mulock and he informs us we had better put all the documents before you, therefore we beg to hand you copies of letters from our lighthouse department in Liverpool together with charts and suggestions. We think ourselves the suggestions made are all in the right direction, but if you will wire to our Montreal office they will send you a couple of our most experienced captains to confer with you as to the possibility of improvements all round. We feel sure that all the ministers are as equally anxious as ourselves to make the St. Lawrence route as popular as any other to the mainland. At present we are handicapped. The underwriters say we are in more risky navigation than northern ports of the United States, but it is nevertheless a fact that we have completed during the last three years about eighty voyages from Canada without a mishap. Therefore we are indignant that our ships should he charged eight per cent as against New' York three per cent, and it depends upon ourselves to convince the underwriters they are wrong. It will do no harm in trying to accomplish this to recognize in any way any deficiency we tray have had such as fog signals and buoys. Then can you make the draught of water a bit deeper and the turnings a little less difficult ? Anything we can do on this side-we are so deeply interested-we beg of you to command any assistance we can render.
Yours faithfully,
(Sgd.) ALFRED JONES. Hon. James Sutherland,
Minister of Marine,
Ottawa.
This letter was duly acknowledged by my predecessor, and because of it the department asked the different captains whose names I have given to submit suggestions, which suggestions were made and some carried out, while others are Being carried out.


Robert Laird Borden: What is the date of that letter ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: 29th of August, 1902. Now. the Minister of Justice has drawn attention to the fact that the examination of the pilots as regards their eyesight is only made once a year. To show the members of the committee how slow these improvements go, I
may mention that it was only in 189S that the harbour commissioners of Montreal began to force the pilots to submit to an examination as to their eyesight. Formerly they were only examined when they were admitted, or after they had attained the age of sixty-five. When I was a member of the Board of Harbour Commissioners of Montreal, I succeeded in having the by-laws amended and this new rule imposed on the pilots. I have been informed since that it is not sufficient to have the pilots examined as to their eyesight only once a year; I have also been informed by a competent oculist that the kind of examination is not what it ought to be. I have been informed that some oculists-I will not mention names or places-are ready to give a certificate that the person is quite competent to be a pilot and that his eyesight is perfect, while another oculist, better aware of his duties, will refuse. The question is under consideration, and I infend to consult some specialist, and to have this rule amended so as to make tlie examination as accurate and as reliable as possible.


Robert Laird Borden: How does the hon. gentleman propose to have the pilots examined as to the quality of their eyesight ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: I am not in a position to state now, but I will be guided in that question by professional men. I should think that if tlie examination is properly made, once a year would be often enough, made at the opening of navigation. But the information I have is that once a year is not enough. In former years when there was an examination only upon the admission of the pilot, they were allowed to remain in the service for forty or fifty years without being examined again.


Robert Laird Borden: I suppose that some assistance might be obtained by ascertaining how often railway engineers are examined as to their eyesight, and what precautions are taken.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: We have written for information.


Robert Laird Borden: I have been informed that railway engineers are examined at least every three months.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: I understand that in England very strict rules are enforced for tlie navigation of the English channel, and I think the Minister of Marine and Fisheries could not do better than to see how far he can adopt the system of controlling pilots, and the special system which exists with respect to tlie examination of their eyesight. They have a very effective system there, and also on tlie French coast.


Robert Laird Borden: Perhaps the bon. gentleman will state what it is.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: I would not like to undertake to do that, because I-am speaking only from the imperfect information which one gets from having practiced in the admiralty court, and that is the only knowledge I have. But I know there is such a system, for I have had occasion to look into the rules that exist on the other side. My hon. friend will find in the department a letter that was written after the meeting of the British Medical Association some years ago. A young Canadian doctor was over there, and he wrote me a letter pointing out the difficulties that existed in this country with respect to the examination of pilots, and the difficulties that would result from the imperfect examination that was held. I passed the letter on to Sir Louis Davies, and I think he will find that there is in the department a letter from Dr. Cooke, of Quebec, pointing out all these things, and suggesting plans for following out the rules existing on the other side, and indicating what those rules are.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: We are seeking for information from the other side now. What induced me to ask for information was a letter I received from a competent oculist of Montreal a few weeks ago.


Robert Laird Borden: In the cases that have occurred of which there was some record in the report of the department-to which I have not been able to give the attention no doubt it deserves-in the report of the wrecks that have taken place, is there any statement as to the number of cases in which the defective eyesight of the pilots has contributed to the accident ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: Up to the present we have not received such information. There are no cases where the accident was attributed to defective eyesight.


Adam Carr Bell: I observe that one point is insisted on with a good deal of force in the report of Commander Spain, that is that the pilots should be taken under control of the Dominion government. At present, as I understand, they are under the control of the harbour commissioners of Quebec and Montreal. Those that practice their calling in the lower St. Lawrence, I suppose, are under the control of the harbour commissioner of Quebec. Now, has the Minister of Marine and Fisheries made any arrangements to take these pilots from under the control of the harbour commissioners of Quebec and place them under the control of his department ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: It is the intention of the department to add one of our officials to the board of examiners, especially in Montreal.


Hon. Mr. FITZPATRICK.: 


Adam Carr Bell: Has the hon. gentleman authority to do that now ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: No, we will ask for the authority this session.


Adam Carr Bell: Because any regulations that might be established would probably be ineffective unless the department had authority to enforce their views upon the harbour commission of Quebec. I find in looking over the report made by the commander that there is a reference to the large number of losses that occur upon the St. Lawrence river. Commander Spain commences on page 27 to speak of these matters, and his reference to these losses is found on pages 28 and 29, losses that have occurred in various years, beginning with 1898, but not including the wrecks that occurred during the past season. I find that although these losses are attributed to the defects of the St. Lawrence route, and I suppose have contributed a great deal to make the route as expensive from an insurance point of view as it is, in every one of these cases mentioned on pages 28 and 29 the losses have always occurred upon the coast of Newfoundland, and mostly upon the east-fern coast. Now, if this represents anything like the proportion of losses which occur on the St. Lawrence route, by far the greater proportion of them are really losses that occur on the coast of Newfoundland. But the -whole discussion to-night has had reference more particularly to the river St. Lawrence, and the gulf of St. Lawrence, upon this side of Newfoundland. We have been speaking about different points in the river, the lower part of the gulf of St. Lawrence and Anticosti, but a very large portion, I may say, in fact, every one of the coses cited on these two pages refers to wrecks not in the gulf of St. Lawrence, but upon the Newfoundland coast.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Bell) is aware that we have no control over that.


Adam Carr Bell: I was going to say that no matter what efforts are made by the Department of Marine and Fisheries of Canada to make the St. Lawrence a safe and cheap route from the Insurance point of view they would apparently be ineffective unless the government of Canada should endeavour to make this coast of Newfoundland a much safer one to approach than it is at present. I know from information I have gathered in the past that the neighbourhood of Cape Race on the south-east coast of Newfoundland is, if I am not mistaken, the most dangerous point in the whole of the navigation, and that it has contributed most largely to give the Gulf of St. Lawrence the very bad reputation that it unfortunately seems to have in the opinion of the underwriters. The fact that it is not inside our own geographical limits does not
i

preclude the department from doing some .work there. At different points, on the Straits of Belle Isle, on Belle Isle Island and elsewhere, there are lighthouses and fog alarms maintained by the Dominion government of Canada. It would seem to me thit perhaps the most important work that could engage the attention of the bon. minister and his department now would be, in ease the government of Newfoundland cannot afford, or is indisposed to make this navigation secure, to take the necessary steps and incur the necessary expenditure to eliminate as much as possible the dau-gerous features from the navigation in the neighbourhood of Cape Race. I would like to know if the bon. minister has given this subject any attention, and if his estimates for the coming year include any expenditure to| be made in that neighbourhood, or if he has made arrangements or is about to make arrangements to get a credit from parliament to enable him to reduce the dangers of the south-east coast of Newfoundland ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: This matter has been considered and is being considered by the department, and all that can be done to remedy whatever evils may exist and to provide whatever improvements will be necessary will be done by the officers of the department.


Adam Carr Bell: That is a very indefinite reply. This subject would not appear to have given such thought to the department as, to my mind it is really necessary that it should have given. If the hon. minister will take the trouble to look at the chart indicating where the wrecks have occurred on the St. Lawrence route he will find that the coast near Cape Race is really studded with wrecks and it is hopeless to undertake to make the St Lawrence route a safe one until he can improve the navigation of these waters.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: This point is shown on the chart which is on the Table now. If the bon. gentleman will take the trouble to look at the chart he will see that it is referred to there, and the improvement of the navigation there, is being considered by the department.


Robert Laird Borden: I went to look at the chart in view of what my hon. friend (Mr. Bell) was saying, and I do not think it discloses very much about the east coast of Newfoundland.


Adam Carr Bell: It shows the coast, that is all.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: It shows Cape Race.


Robert Laird Borden: The chart does not really show very much in the way of precautions in the neighbourhood of Cape 131
Race, and I would like to endorse what my hon. friend (Mr. Bell) has said as to the urgent necessity of special attention being given to that part of the coast. However, the hon. minister says that his officers have that in mind. Look at the chart and you will see that Cape Race has a siren and a flash light and that at Cape Pine a siren is recommended.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: All this was explained fully when the hon. gentleman was not here.


Robert Laird Borden: If it has been explained I do not want the hon. gentleman to go over it again, because I will read it all in ' Hansard.' Before that discussion on this item closes, I would like to ask the hon. minister what view the officers of his department are now taking In regard to the establishment of a lightship off the coast of Halifax harbour? I had occasion to bring that matter to the attention of Sir Louis Davies when he was Minister of Marine and Fisheries, at considerable length two years ago, and since that time It has engaged public attention a good deal in the city of Halifax. There is a very strong feeling among people familiar with the approaches to the harbour, and especially among captains of steamers which make regular trips to the port, and generally among those capable of forming a judgment, that a lightship should 'be provided as soon as possible. Some demur has been made to that for the reason that, I think, fifteen or twenty years ago a lightship was put in place and did not prove a success. I was more familiar with the facts in regard to that two years ago than I am at present, but I understand that it is contended by those who are advocating the establishment of a lightship there, that modern methods as applied to the establishment and securing of lightships would make it perfectly easy to have a lightship at a place outside of the outer harbour at Halifax, where it is very urgently needed indeed. I explained the matter very fully, from the standpoint of those who are familiar with it, in some remarks which I made to the House two sessions ago. I have just sent to the library for ' Hansard,' but it has not arrived yet. However, I can give the hon. minister the reference to it. It would be just as easy for him to make that reference as if I should repeat my remarks now. I could not get from Sir Louis Davies at that time any reply which could be regarded as very satisfactory. He repeated the statement then and afterwards that in the opinion of his department a lightship would not be practical or something of that knd, as far as I remember. Still, that does not seem to be in consonance with the view which is entertained by people of very great experience in the city, and I think that this subject might well be taken up by the hon. minister, because there is no doubt whatever that wrecks have occurred off the


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: The increase is due to the development of the fishing industry in British Columbia, the North-west Territories and Manitoba.
Building fish-ways and clearing rivers, $3,-
000.


Mr. TAYLOR.: There is an increase of


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: There is an increase of $2,000 because the department has been found neglectful in not providing fish-ways in many places and the demands upon the department have increased very much. We intend, for the protection of fish, to give more attention to this question.


Adam Carr Bell: On what river is it intended to make this new expenditure ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: No river in particular. We have been asked in many cases to attend to this question. The individual expenditures are very small, varying from $50 to $100.


Adam Carr Bell: Such an amount as that would not provide a fish-way.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: Yes, they are small works.
Canadian fishery exhibit, $4,000.


George Taylor: There is an increase of


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: We are making a new installation on account of the old exhibits having been left at Paris and destroyed at other exhibitions.


Adam Carr Bell: Before the whole item passes may I ask the hon. minister to give us a little more information in reference to the building and maintenance of fish-breeding establishments. I see there is an increase of $3,000. How many new fish-breeding establishments are the government providing and in wbat localities ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: There are three new lobster hatcheries to be provided, two in New Brunswick and one in Prince Edward Island. There is also under consideration the establishment of a fish hatchery in the Northwest Territories and one on the great lakes.


Adam Carr Bell: Would $3,000 provide for the building and maintenance of these three and possibly five fish hatcheries?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: I am informed by the ofli-cers of the department that it will. They are not very expensive.
Some resolutions reported.
On motion of the Minister of Finance, House adjourned at 11 p.m.

Monday, June 8, 1903.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER took the Chair at Three o'clock.



[Stage Direction]
The MINISTER OF FINANCE (Hon. W.
S.	Fielding) introduced Bill (No. 198) respecting Penny Banks. He said : The object of this Bill, as its name implies, is the cultivation of thrift in small matters, the encouragement of small savings of a class not reached by the government savings bank. A year ago we had application from some public-spirited gentlemen of Toronto, who wished to obtain a special charter for the establishment of a bank of this character. We thought it better, however, if such banks were to be established, that it should be done under some general law which would apply to all established under similar circumstances. The gentlemen in Toronto very readily assented to that view, and we have prepared a Bill of a general character which will meet their case, and also, if they should arisef cases of a like character elsewhere. The design is that these institutions may be established by letters patent issued by the Governor in Council, and shall all come under the general rules laid down. It is intended that they shall not Mr. TAYLOR.
be money-making or money-lending institutions, but that they shall be entirely money-saving institutions. Indeed, it would not be too much to describe them as practically collecting agencies for the government savings bank. It is proposed that a small proportion of the funds they receive, 5 per cent, shall be held by the penny banks to meet the daily demands; but the balance shall be deposited with the government savings bank, and shall only be withdrawn when required by the depositors. The penny bank shall not require to have a capital; but the persons organizing it shall be required to have $10,000 as f guarantee of good faith. It is to be understood, not as a commercial undertaking, but rather as a benevolent institution, which will be established by churches and benevolent societies. For the money deposited in the government savings bank we propose to allow i per cent above the ordinary rate of interest, though the institution itself will not pay a larger rate of interest than the government savings bank. But to meet the expense of management, we propose to encourage the very worthy object of these gentlemen by paying to the bank i per cent higher interest than we pay to the ordinary depositor. If it should be found that * per cent would more than pay the cost of management, it will be reduced; but I do not anticipate that that will be the case. What I anticipate is that gentlemen establishing institutions of this character will do it for benevolent purposes, and will have to put their hands into their pockets and help to pay the expenses. They will be allowed to Invest their own guarantee fund in reasonably good securities, but the money of the depositors must be deposited in the government savings bank. These in brief are the main provisions of the Bill. We shall be very glad, when it reaches a later stage, to have any suggestions that may be offered to improve it. It has been prepared at the suggestion of the gentlemen in Toronto to whom I have referred; but we have thought it well to devise a system whereby, if similar savings banks should be started in other parts of the country, they would be brought under the operation of this Act.
Mr. KAULBACH.: Is there any maximum amount that can be deposited ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Yes, it must not exceed $300.


Mr. JABEL ROBINSON.: I would like to ask the hon. minister if we have any coin in Canada equal to a penny, or what he means by a penny ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: If the hon. gentleman will consult the dictionary he will find that, although in England a
penny is described as a copper coin of a certain weight and character, it also means a small coin of any kind. In the United

States a small coin is called a penny, and the term is pretty well understood in that sense. In our decimal currency we have not anything which is technically called a penny ; but our Toronto friends who originated this proposal wished that the term should be adopted, and we have gratified their wish.


Andrew B. Ingram: Does the hon. gentleman know of any place outside of Toronto where there are such banks ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: The Bill is general, and such a bank may be established anywhere; but the movement is led by these gentlemen in Toronto, who are anxious to establish such a bank.


Andrew B. Ingram: I think there are banks of this kind at other places which have been established longer than they have been in Toronto.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: But they have no charter. If they wished to have the stamp of authority, they would have to come under the provisions of this Bill.


Robert Laird Borden: I suppose that such banks would not reach anything that could not be reached by the savings bank. There is no limit in the deposits of the savings banks ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Yes, a dollar deposited at one time.


Robert Laird Borden: I suppose these organizations might reach places which would not be reached by the government savings bank.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: It would be possible, but hardly likely. They will most likely be established in connection with some benevolent organizations in the large cities and towns.


Robert Laird Borden: I understand that there is a description of penny bank or small savings bank which has come into vogue to some extent on the continent of Europe, and also in the United Kingdom, and which not only receives money on deposit, but lends money in small amounts to its own shareholders; and I am informed that there is a bank of that character established at the present time at L6vis. This proposed enactment, I gather from what the hon. gentleman has said, does not at all relate to institutions of that kind ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: No.


Robert Laird Borden: Has the question suggested itself to the government as to whether or not banks of that kind should be given any legal status in this country ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Yes ; several members of parliament, in conjunction with a gentleman who is officially connected with this House, recently called upon
me and described to me the bank which is now in operation at Levis, based on a similar principle to banks which exist in some European countries. I have promised that I will look into the matter, though I do not anticipate that we shall take any action upon it during the present session. But the banks to be established under this Bill will in no way conflict with such an institution, because these are not to be moneylending banks at all. The banks the hon. gentleman refers to, do lend money in a limited sphere.


Robert Laird Borden: Only to their own shareholders.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Only to their own shareholders; and I understand that there is the very wholesome rule that the directors shall not lend to themselves. But this will in no way conflict with such institutions if later on we should decide to make provision for them.


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

[Stage Direction]
The MINISTER OF JUSTICE (Hon. Charles Fitzpatrick) moved for leave to introduce Bill (No. 199) respecting the Good Shepherd Reformatory, in the city of St. John, N.B.
Robert Laird Borden: Will the hon. gentleman kindly state the purport of the Bill ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: This Bill is on the lines of the provisions respecting the Andrew Mercer Reformatory, the Ontario reformatory for women, contained in chapter 183 of the Revised Statutes of Canada. The suggestion for the legislation which I now introduce originated with the recorder, or chief magistrate, of the city of St. John, and is approved of by the Attorney General of the province of New Brunswick. The Bill is limited to the Roman Catholic reformatory in St. John, and will be applicable only to women and girls of the Roman Catholic faith. Its intention is to allow the magistrates of St. John to commit young girls and women of the Roman Catholic faith to this reformatory, which is a religious institution under the control of the Catholic Church, instead of being obliged to send them to jail as at present.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: We have the same thing at Halifax.


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

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 195) for the relief of James Reid Steele.-Mr. McCreary.
[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 196) for the relief of William Allen.-Mr. McCreary.

Adam Carr Bell: Before the Orders of the Day are called, I wish to ask the attention of the bon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries to a matter concerning which I have received information from Nova Scotia. It is reported to me that on the 3rd of June, at seven o'clock in the morning, twenty-nine American fishermen and seiners were fishing within the three-mile limit off Guysborough. At the same time the cutter * Osprey ' was at anchor in Canso and the 'Kingfisher' in Arichat. It is known that the- waters of Guysborough bay at that particular time were alive with mackerel, and these American fishermen were in pursuit of them. Still it is reported that no action was taken by the cruisers to prevent these Americans from fishing within the three-mile limit, and they continued to fish, and, in some cases destroyed the nets set by the local fishermen. It is not a matter of sufficient importance to move the adjournment of the House, but I would like to know what information the government has received.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: There is no information in the department that any violation of the law has taken place, but a telegram dated the 3rd of June has been received reporting a large fleet at Arichat accompanied by our cruisers, and that they are kept outside the three mile limits by our two cutters.


Adam Carr Bell: Is that an official report from the fishery officers ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: Yes.



QUESTIONS.


[Stage Direction]
Mr. BROCK-by Mr. Lancaster-asked :
1.	Have the government, during the past year, printed on any of its reports, documents, or publications, issued from the Printing Bureau, the label, or imprint, of any labour organizations ?
2.	If so, what are the names of the organizations, and upon what reports, documents, or publications, did such label, or imprint, appear ?
3.	What is the object in using such label, or imprint, on such reports, documents, or publications ?
4.	If such labels, or imprints, are used by the government, are the organizations which they represent, Canadian organizations, or are they controlled from the United States, or allied with United States organizations ?
5.	Are the funds collected from the members of such organizations, invested temporarily or
Hon. Mr. FIELDING.: permanently in Canada ; or are they invested in the United States ?
6.	Where is the chief office of such organizations ?
7.	In what country does the majority of the membership of such organizations reside ?
8.	Does the government employ Canadians who do not belong to such organizations to work on such reports, documents or publications, upon which such label, or imprint, appears ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE (Hon. W. S. Fielding) :: The ' Labour Gazette ' was issued with what is called the Union Label which was intended to indicate that the work was done by union labour.
As to the relations between labour organizations in Canada and the United States, the government have no information that is not in the possession of the public.
The government, in employing people in the Printing Bureau, make no condition as to membership in any organization.


Mr. JABEL ROBINSON asked :: 1.	Referring to page B-7 of the Auditor General's Report for the year 1902, in which is given a very long list of amounts due to the Printing Bureau by members of parliament, exmembers and others, for printing, advertising, &c.. why are so many arrearages allowed to stand from year to year ?
2.	Have proper efforts been made to collect the above accounts ?
3.	Whose duty is it to look after and collect these accounts ?
4.	Why are all such bills not paid promptly on the delivery of the work, or within a specified short time after ?
5.	Who is responsible for such non-payment?


The PRIME MINISTER (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier).: On September 22, 1897, the Treasury Board ordered as follows :
The board, after a careful consideration of the matter, direct that the Queen's Printer be instructed hereafter to give no further supplies to persons who are in arrears for supplies previously furnished.
This order is enforced.


GOVERNMENT BINDER TWINE FACTORY.
Mr. LEONARD asked :: 1.	Has the following circular been distributed ?
GOVERNMENT BINDER TWINE FACTORY. (Circular.)
Kingston, May 1, 1903.
Sir,-The factory at Kingston penitentiary will be able to supply about 300 tons (600,000 pounds) of first-class twine for use this season. Of this quantity about 40 tons (80,000 pounds) is of the brand sold last year under the name of ' Kingston Special,' 500 feet to the pound, as to which we have received many recommendations.

The rest of the season's output will he pure Manilla twine, well twisted, carefully balled and warranted to measure as per ticket attached.
The factory having been thoroughly overhauled and more perfect supervision of the work provided for, there is no reason to fear competition as to quality from any source ; while as to prices, the favourable comparisons of former years will be maintained.
To make sure of the advantages offered by the government factory, please send in your orders at once, stating quantity and grade. Your orders will be booked and invoices sent to you at once. When you desire the twine to be forwarded, send the money by registered letter, express order, P.O. order or bank draft, together with shipping directions, and the twine will be shipped forthwith. If you remit by bank cheque, please see that it is marked ' good ' and made payable at par at Kingston.
Where it is at all convenient, it is advisable that farmers join and send club orders for ton-lots or car-load lots, through one of themselves, through the head of a farmer's society or union, or through any agent they may choose, provided they accompany the club order with a certified list of farmers who comprise the club, and show the quantity and grade of twine required by each. In this way they will secure the advantage of lower freight and save expense in registration, postage, commission, &c., in addition to the reduction in price of $5 per ton. ' Club Order ' blanks will be forwarded upon request.
The quantity of twine manufactured at the government factory is but a small fraction of the amount annually consumed by the farmers of Canada, and the entire season's output will, doubtless, be ordered during the next few weeks. If you intend to order, do so at once. Should the following authorized schedule of prices be reduced before your twine is shipped, you shall have the benefit of any such reduction.
Cents.
Schedule of prices (to farmers only).
Pure manilla (650 feet to lb.)	 Ill
Pure manilla (600 feet to lb.)	 10|
Kingston special (500 feet to lb.) ...	91
i cent per lb. less on ton lots.
Terms:-Cash with order. All f.o.b., Kingston.
Address all communications and remittances to the warden of the penitentiary, Kingston, Ont.
J. M. PLATT, Warden,
(650 ft. twine al! told a few days after this circular was issued.)
2.	If so, in what places ?
3.	Has it been translated into French ?
4.	Has it been sent, thus translated, into the parishes of the province of Quebec ?
5.	In which parishes has it been so distii-buted ?
6.	Has the department, in any way, made the farmers of the province of Quebec aware rt the advantages of purchasing this binde" twine at Kingston ?
7.	If so, in what ways ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE (Hon. Charles Fitzpatrick).: :
1.	Yes.
2.	To all farmers in Canada who have in the past purchased binder twine from the penitentiary, or inquired regarding binder twine, and to the secretaries of all farmers' clubs and agricultural societies whose address could be ascertained by the warden.
3.	Yes.
4.	Not yet, but it will be the moment it is received from the printers.
6.	Yes.
7.	By sending a copy of the circular referred to above to all farmers who have in the past purchased binder twine from the penitentiary, or inquired regarding twine, and to the secretaries of all farmers' clubs and agricultural societies whose address could be ascertained by the warden.


GOVERNMENT PRINTING BUREAU.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. CLARKE-by Mi\ Lancaster-asked :
1.	Is the Government Printing Bureau in this city an * open ' office, or is it a union office ?
2.	Are men who do not belong to the Typographical Union permitted to work as compositors In the composing room ; and if so, how many such men are now employed there 7
3.	Were the demands recently made by the compositors in the bureau for an increase of wages submitted to the fair-wage officer of the Labour Bureau to report upon ; and if so, did he report favourably or unfavourably upon the demand ?
The PRIME MINISTER (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier) :: 1 and 2. There never has been any obligation on the part of the government to employ union men only. It is now an open office.
3. The Typographical Union of Ottawa, composed of about eighty per cent of Bureau employees, adopted a new increased scale of wages, to come into operation on the 1st of June, without previous demand or conference. The scale was declared to be binding on all compositors. The government declined to adopt the new scale.


GOVERNMENT BINDER TWINE FACTORY.
Mr. LEONARD asked :: 1.	What are the residences and the post office addresses of the purchasers of binder twine from the Kingston penitentiary whose names are the following ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE (Hon. Charles Fitzpatrick).: I think that the hon.


Mr. LEONARD.: gentleman would be well advised not to press for an answer to this question. Those in charge of the industry tell me that it will not be to our interest to give at present the addresses of our customers dealing with the institution at Kingston. The following information will probably supply what the hon. gentleman requires up to the present, as to the quantity sold during May :

Province.	Pure Manilla.	Kingston Sj)eciiii.650 ft.	600 ft.	500 ft.Ontario	
Quebec	2,825 3,350	14,175 5,965 1,650	3,550 1,400Prince Edward Island..	2,000 6,800	6,500 20,000	
14,975	48,290	5,150
2.	No.
3.	No.
4.	Up to the present no other means have been used. Nearer harvest, perhaps in a week or two, advertisements will be inserted in the newspapers as usual.


CHIEF JUSTICE BOYD-HIS RELATIVES AND GOVERNMENT EMPLOY.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. JOHNSTON (Cardwell)-by Mr. Morin -asked :
How many sons or relatives of Chief Justice Boyd, if any, are in the employ of the government ? What is the date of their appointment, and the salary paid to each ?
The PRIME MINISTER (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier).: Speaking under correction, there are no sons or relatives of Chief Justice Boyd in the employ of the government-at least, it is not known that there are any.


CANADIAN NORTHERN RAILWAY-GUARANTEE OP SECURITIES.
[Stage Direction]
The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS (Hon. A. G. Blair) moved that the House go into Committee of the Whole tomorrow, to consider the following resolution
1.	Resolved, that the government may aid the extension of the line of the Canadian Northern Railway Company from Grandview, the point where what is known as the Gilbert Plains branch of the said railway ends, to a point at or near Edmonton, a distance of about 620 miles, and also of the Prince Albert branch of the said railway from a .point 100 miles east of Prince Albert to Prince Albert, a distance of about 100 miles, by guaranteeing the principal and interest of the first mortgage bonds, debentures or other securities of the company to the extent of $13,000 per mile of the line, interest on the said bonds to be at the rate of three per cent per annum payable half-yearly, and the principal to be payable in 50 years.
2.	Resolved, that the said bonds, debentures or other securities shall be secured by mortgage forming a first charge upon the lines of railway so aided, and all property and franchises in connection therewith, and all revenues derived therefrom by the company ; provided that with respect to that portion of the said line from the end of the Gilbert Plains
branch to the westerly boundary of Manitoba, a distance not exceeding sixty-five miles, the said mortgage shall be a first charge to the extent of only $10,000 per mile, but shall also rank on the said portion next after the charges heretofore created ; provided also that the said mortgage shall be a charge next after a first charge of $13,000 per mile (to be created by the company) on that part of said Prince Albert branch.
3.	Resolved, that the said mortgage shall also form a charge next after the charges existing thereon upon all the lines and branch lines of railway of the company now in operation, and all property and franchises connected therewith. and all revenues derived therefrom by the company.
4.	Resolved, that the kind of securities to be guaranteed as aforesaid, and the forms thereof, and the form and terms of the mortgage securing them, and the form and manner of guarantee, shall be such as the Governor in Council approves of.
5.	Resolved, that upon the said guarantee being signed on behalf of the government, the government shall become liable for the payment of the principal and interest of the securities guaranteed, and the said payment shall be a charge upon the Consolidated Revenue Fund.
6.	Resolved, that the rates and tolls to be charged for the transfer and carriage of freight and passengers upon the lines of railway 30 aided and upon the lines owned by the Canadian Northern Railway shall be under the control of the Governor in Council or of such authority, commission or tribunal as is designated or constituted under any Act of the parliament of Canada for the regulation or control of the business of railways.
7.	Resolved, that the Governor in Council or any authority created ,by parliament for the purpose may also grant running powers over any portion of the lines hereby aided to any other line of railway upon terms considered equitable.
8.	Resolved, that it shall be unlawful for the Canadian Northern Railway to lease or sell any of its lines or any portion thereof to the Canadian Pacific Railway Company or to amalgamate with the .said company or enter into any agreement with the said company whereby rates upon freight or passengers shall be pooled; but this provision shall not extend to traffic or running arrangements made with the assent of the Governor in Council.
9.	Resolved, that any money paid by the government of Canada under the guarantee herein provided for shall be held to be paid in discharge of the liability of the government, but not in discharge of the liability of the mortgage securing them ; and the money so paid shall be held to be still secured by the said securities and mortgage, and the government shall be subrogated in all the rights of the holders of the securities, the interest upon or the principal of which has been paid by the government, and the government shall in respect of all the moneys so paid be in all respects in the position of security holders in respect of whose securities default has been made in payment to the extent of the moneys paid by the government.
He said : I may say, Mr. Speaker, that his Excellency the Governor General having been apprised of the purpose of this motion, assents thereto and recommends it to the House.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS (Hou. Wm. Paterson) moved the third reading of Bill (No. 174) to amend the Customs Act.
Robert Laird Borden: Was there not some information the hon. minister (Hon. Mr. Paterson) was to give on the third reading of this Bill ? The third reading stood over for some special reason which I do not recollect at the moment.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: There was some discussion, hut with relation to matters that appertain more particularly to the estimates. There were several points on which information was to be given, and I am having that information prepared so as to be ready when the estimates come up again. But I do not remember that there was any information to be given particularly relating to this Bill. One subject discussed was the advisability of granting power for the employment of temporary clerks. But this was fully discussed and was agreed to. If the hon. gentleman (Mr. Borden, Halifax) prefers that the Bill should stand, we will allow it to stand.


Robert Laird Borden: If it would not be any inconvenience to the hon. gentleman I would prefer it. I think the hon. gentleman who asked for some information, or for some reason, asked that the Bill be allowed to stand over, is not present.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: I move the adjournment of the debate.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and debate adjourned.

[Stage Direction]
House again in committee on Bill (No. 188) to amend the Weights and Measures Act.-The Minister of Inland Revenue.
Mr. BOYD.: The hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Stewart) wished to be here when this Bill was under discussion. I do not see him in his place at the moment.


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER.: The Bill has already been postponed because of the absence of hon. members.
On section 1,
Section 29 of 'the Weights and Measures Act, chapter 104 of the revised statutes, is amended by adding the following subsection thereto :-
' Postal scales, when engraved and stamped as such, and of a capacity not exceeding four pounds, and not used for trade purposes, may be sold without inspection under such regulations as the Department of Inland Revenue prescribes ; but any person using such scales for other than postal purposes shall be liable to the penalties prescribed by subsection one of this section.


The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE (Hon. M. E. Bernier).: That section was passed.


Andrew George Blair: 


Peter Macdonald: It does not appear so by the Bill I have here.


Robert Laird Borden: How are you to have any real supervision over the user or non-user of these scales ?


The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE.: I explained the other day. These scales are for letter use.


Robert Laird Borden: I understand that. I remember the hon. minister's position. He says that these scales are to be used solely to weigh letters or other mail matter, and there is no reason to inspect them because the weights will be corrected by the post office department. That seems a very good reason, but what I am pointing out is something further : You issue these post office scales to men who are conducting an ordinary business. What provision have you to make sure that he does not use them for the purpose of his business ? How can you possibly supervise a thing of that kind ? Should not you limit in some way, the persons who use the scales or the places where they are to be used ?


The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE.: The department will have to pass a regulation regarding the sale and use of these scales. To a certain extent, they will be subject to the supervision of the office. If parties are found using these scales for other purposes than the weighing of mail matter, they will be liable to punishment. But I do not think they will be used for any other purpose than the weighing of letters. Although the present Act prohibits the use of any kind of scale without inspection, still, for the benefit of many people, we think it better to allow the use of these scales.


Mr. COCHRANE.: A great many of the postmasters in the small places in Ontario are also merchants. I have in my mind's eye several in my own riding who are in that position. Why should not these scales, then, be inspected as well as any other, so that there could not be any possibility of merchants in post offices using fraudulent weights in dealing with the public ? As I understand it, if the postmaster has these scales, they are exempt from inspection except by some official of the Post Office Department.


The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE.: The scales for the post office are supplied by the Post Office Department, and the rates of postage determined by private individuals by means of these scales are subsequently fixed by the post office authorities I now lay on the Table for the inspection of hon. members, one of the scales in question, which weighs from one-half ounce to one pound.


Robert Laird Borden: Might I ask the hon. gentleman whether this is the only

description of scales that is suggested by the section ?


The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE.: This is a sample of some of those scales, but there are many kinds.
On section 2 :
Notwithstanding anything in the said Act, the charge for the threshing of grain may, until a suitable scale or measuring apparatus therefor that may be verified, is provided and has been approved by an order of the Governor in Council, be determined by any device which records, automatically or otherwise, the number of discharges made.
The quantity threshed and upon which the charge for threshing is to toe based shall be determined by check-weights on a properly verified scale, such number cf times per day as is agreed upon between the operator of the threshing machine and the owner of the grain threshed ; and the aggregate quantity thus established shall be that for which threshing charges shall be payable ; and such charges may be recovered in any court of law or equity.
This section may be repealed by qrder of the Governor in Council whenever it is established to his satisfaction that an apparatus complying with the provisions of this Act is available.


Robert Laird Borden: Can the minister- state what) is the exact change made by t)liis Bill ? Is it proposed to substitute this section for some section that already exists, or is it an entirely new provision ?


The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE.: It is an entirely new provision.


Robert Laird Borden: What is the inconvenience in the present condition, and what is intended to be effected by this ?


The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE.: Last year we had a discussion with regard to scales to be adapted to threshing machines used in Manitoba and the Northwest Territories. At the time I declared that I was almost sure that the weighing machine then in use did not meet the provisions of the Act which required that those scales should be inspected. Unfortunately that scale was not made according to law. Since then the owner of that scale, or somebody in lxis Interest, has been working on it in order to perfect it, and I am informed that as now manufactured it would be considered sufficient, but it is not yet in our possession. In the meantime, to prevent other difficulties winch have been experienced I understand for several years past, we Introduce this clause, which may be repealed by Order in Council as soon as a scale is found suitable to answer the purposes of the law, and gives satisfaction to the public. As the clause reads, in order to avoid any difficulty between the owners of threshing machines and the farmers, we have asked that an inspected scale he used so that when any difficulty arises between the owner of the grain and the owner of the threshing machine .in regard to the weight of the grain, the difficulty may be settled by check tests.


Robert Laird Borden: I observe that the provisions of this enactment seem to be dependent upon some check established by the second subsection :	There are to
*be Check weights on a properly verified scale. It seems to me legislation of that kind may be found unworkable, in some instances at least. You are making the operation of the Act dependent upon an agreement between the two persons interested. What operations will the section have then ? Of course if the man who owns the threshing machine and the owner of the grain come to an agreement, we really do not want any legislation. But if they do not come to an agreement, I do not see how you can make much progress under this section, because the whole of the section is dependent apparently upon the check established by section 2, and that check is based upon an agreement between the two parties. Well, is not that rather unworkable in the only case in which you might find much occasion to apply it ?


The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE.: I have already explained the difficulty that arises when the farmer and the owner of the threshing machine do not agree. But even when they do agree, after the grain is threshed the farmer may begin to complain because there was no .weighing machine attached to the threshing machine, and I am told that judgments have been rendered by the courts sustaining the farmer in refusing to pay. In order to remedy that difficulty we adopt a machine as a temporary measure, and until we have a machine that will give satisfaction to both parties we have thought it best to introduce this legislation. But in order to give satisfaction both to the farmer and the owner of the machine, we have made provision that if at any time, at any hour of the day, either one of the parties is not satisfied that the scale is working properly, they may weigh by another scale, and the inspected scale is used to ascertain whether the weighing machine is working properly or not.


Robert Laird Borden: If the statute meant what the hon. Minister of Inland Revenue (Hon. Mr. Bernier) seems to think it does I would be inclined to agree witli him, but I do not think it does. If the second clause said that either party would have the right to have the weights verified not less than four times, or six times, per day and at intervals of not less than an hour, or half an hour, you could work it out, but where you make it dependent upon the agreement of both parties I cannot see how you are going to work it out except where both parties actually- agree to that. The object of the statute is to effect a remedy in cases where the parties do not agree, where they are at arm's length. It does not seem that the statute carries out what the hon. minister has in his mind.


The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE.: As I have already explained, this is only a temporary measure. If these people cannot agree, even when they make a bargain between themselves, I do not see how any law can oblige them to be satisfied, unless we can make provision that they shall have an opportunity to try or test the weights any time in the day. If they are willing they can test them twenty times in the day. Both parties will be interested in having correct weights, first, the farmer who has to pay and the owner of the threshing machine who has to receive the money. I have inquired what we can do in that direction and I have come to the conclusion that we had better not fix the number of times in a day that a test may be made.


Nathaniel Boyd: Mr. Chairman, I do not see any particular benefit in that portion of the Bill. I think if the hon. Minister of Inland Revenue made the Act to read that it did not apply to grain coming from the threshing machine, it would answer the purpose he has in view in introducing this Bill. This matter which I brought to the attention of the House last year is oue of very great importance to the people of Manitoba and the North-west Territories. I pointed out then to the hon. minister and to the government, the opportunities there were preventing, a man from collecting his bills and it was shown by the hon. member for Llsgar (Mr. Stewart) that the amount of such threshing exceeded $5,000,000 last year, not one dollar of which could be collected by law. Last year I gave the hon. minister some instances of the trouble that had taken place in court, but, try as best I could and with the assistance of other hon. members, I could not convince the hon. minister of the importance of dealing with this question. The correspondence which I have in my hand was moved for and was laid on the Table of the House. The very thing that the minister is doing now, he. or his deputy minister, says here they cannot possibly do. Yet, they find now that they can do it. In the correspondence laid on the Table of the House last year there is a letter from Mr. Thompson, of Wolseley, complaining of the matter in regard to which we are complaining, on the floor of this House and, pointing out the disability under which they labour. In reply to that gentleman this letter from the deputy minister says :
The department fully realizes these difficulties but they are such as cannot be overcome by legislation, but are of a character that can be removed by threshers requiring manufacturers of threshing machines to provide a properly constructed scale that will pass the government inspection. That this can be done I have not the slightest doubt, and the efforts of threshers should be exerted in that direction.
The hon. Minister of Inland Revenue was aware of this, although this letter was signed by his deputy, on the 15th April, 1902, but now, it seems that he can do Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).
something, or is trying to do something that he then $aid he could not do. He also had brought to his attention at that time a machine that it was believed would meet the requirements. I think portions of this correspondence cast a decided reflection upon the hon. minister himself. No doubt it was thought that the letter of the deputy minister would have an entirely different bearing and that it would be a reflection upon the members from Manitoba and the North-west Territories. The chief inspector, whom I designed as part blacksmith and part inspector, and I have seen no reason to revise that statement, winds up his report as follows :
The members who are fighting the battle for the ' Grain Threshing Scale' makers, do not seem to see that they are unknowingly occupying a false position, opposed to their own interests and to the interests of those they represent. They have within reach an article that will meet the requirements of the law, which can be made by any manufacturer, without royalty, and yet they are trying to force upon the farmers of the North-west an inferior machine that is patented and exclusive property of one manufacturer.
It was the hon. Minister of Inland Revenue who brought that matter to the attention of hon. members from Manitoba and the North-west Territories. Here is the speech of the hon. gentleman last session in regard to it. I will refresh his memory :
Some years ago one of our inspectors was instructed to inspect one of these weighing machines, and it was found to be so imperfect that he would not certify to its results ; but recently I have received information that within a short time a proper scale will be perfected, for attachment to weighing machines, and will be ready for use next season. Some weeks ago a manufacturer of these weighing machines was in the department, and from the way he spoke, and from Information which we have received from our own officers in Winnipeg, we are in a position to state that within a few months, or before next session opens, that difficulty will be remedied.
It was the hon. Minister of Inland Revenue himself who asked hon. members from Manitoba and the North-west Territories to go to his department and see that machine working, and if there is any reflection cast upon any person by tbe report of this inspector, it is upon the hon. minister. I consider it a piece of gross impertinence on the part of any employee of this government to use any such language abort hon. members representing their constituents ; yet, this gentleman is endorsed by the hon. minister and the deputy minister in doing that. While he was doing that he was reflecting upon the hon. minister, although he did not know it, because, it was the hon. minister who invited the members from Manitoba and the North-west Territories to go over to his department and see the machine there on exhibition at work. We said: We will be satisfied with anything that will give these people relief. I said then that

the department was derelict in its duty and I say so now.


Peter Macdonald: Shall this section be adopted ?


Nathaniel Boyd: No. I want to hear what the hon. minister has to say about this business.


The MINISTER OP INLAND REVENUE.: The movement was not started until the department had received complaints from people from the North-west Territories. As soon as these complaints reached the department we took measures to provide some remedy. One of our officers at Winnipeg, the inspector of weights and measures, informed the department that he was working on a machine which would be perfected in a short time. In order to ascertain if he was right or wrong, because he had occupied the dual position of inventor and inspector of his own machine, that gentleman came to Ottawa, and in presence of gentlemen from Manitoba and the Northwest Territories his machine was put into motion. As the inspector was the inventor of the machine he could not very well pass judgment on his own invention, and we submitted it to Mr. Fyfe, who is well known throughout the Dominion for his ability in this business. Mr. Fyfe was then a scale manufacturer in Montreal, and he is now our chief inspector of weights and measures. Mr. Fyfe stated in presence of the inventor that the machine was not perfect, as it could not be verified, and, if I remember aright, Mr. Magness admitted it. When I stated last year that I expected a machine would be ready for this season, it was on the representation of Mr. Magness, who told me that the machine would give satisfaction to everybody. When the machine had turned out not to be perfect, correspondence took place whether between Mr. Magness or the Globe Manufacturing Company, and the department. Mr. Fyfe contended that even if changes were made the scale could not be admitted to inspection and verification, and in order to show that the department had left nothing undone to give satisfaction to the people of the North-west, I may read the following letter, which the deputy minister wrote on November 11th last to a firm of lawyers in Winnipeg, with whom he had correspondence :
As to the machine submitted being capable of weighing correctly when operated at the proper speed, the chief inspector to whom this matter was referred states that he has no recollection of the necessity for the machine being run at any specified rate of speed being marked thereon, and that even had such been done he could not recommend the verification of any weighing machine that required to be operated at an indicated speed as an essential feature of its weighing correctly. The department has been most anxious that a suitable scale, for use with grain threshers, should be 132
constructed and is prepared to go aside from many less important features provided the essential provisions of the law and regulation be observed and that the scale is of a character to remove the difliculties complained of in. grain-producing districts. I may even go further and state that the services of the chief inspector will willingly be placed at the disposal of any person undertaking the production of such a scale. I hoped that the scale submitted would be of such a character, and my disappointment is certainly as great as that of the gentleman who placed it before the department for approval.
If the scale originally submitted has been changed as respects the objectionable features pointed out in my first letter, the department will be glad to have another scale passed upon by the chief inspector.
I may admit that the law is perhaps not perfect, but it will be beneficial to have it on the statute-book until such time as a new scale will be invented, in order to prevent the difficulties which have arisen in the past.


Mr. STEWART.: I wish to point out to the minister, the importance of this matter to the farmers of Manitoba and the North-west. The owners of these threshing machines are farmers, and they do the threshing for their neighbours as well as for themselves. Instead of doing all this work by hand, as was formerly the system, the apparatus has developed, until now there is a machine to do all the work of loading into bags and keeping count of every bushel measured. This is now done automatically, and time and labour and expense are saved. If you remove this device from the threshing machines in the west, it will mean an increased cost on the present amount of crop of at least $1,000,000 more to the farmers of the west. I assert that without this machine they would have to pay at least $1,000,000 more to handle their crop. I have here a lengthy reply to the criticisms of Mr. Fyfe, and I will read one or two paragraphs of it which refer to this machine. I am well aware, as the hon. member for Macdonald (Mr. Boyd) stated, that we were invited to see the machine tested in the minister's office. I was present myself, when the weigher made and used on the J. I. Case threshing machine, was in the office. Their agent was here, and their machine was criticised, and they, the officials of the department, explained all they had to do to manufacture it, showing how the bearings should be hardened in order that it might pass the inspection. Let me say here that there appears to be some misunderstanding about this matter. The minister states that Mr. Magness is the inventor of the machine, but I understand from the machine men in Winnipeg that two young men, Messrs. Leitch and Drummond, of the Globe works, are the inventors of this machine. I know that they are the men who are making it and are working on it. I quote the following from the inspector's report of March 19th, page 42 [DOT].



Referring to the inspector's report of March 19th, on page 42, it is admitted that the machine does not balance either with or without the load. As previously explained, about seven pounds of the load is required to he in the bucket before the machine is brought into equilibrium, but this in no way interferes with the accuracy in weighing of the machine. The principle of balancing is not at all applicable to this machine, as in actual work, it operates so rapidly that there would not be time for any one to inspect the weights after the predetermined weight of grain has been deposited in the bucket. In threshing with ordinary grain the bucket would fill and empty grain twenty or thirty times per minute, so that there would be no interval of time after the bucket has filled, for a farmer or any person else to inspect it for the purpose of ascertaining whether it correctly balanced with the load or without the load, but if any farmer, whose grain has been threshed, has doubts about the accuracy of the weighing, he can always test by weighing one or more discharges of the bucket on this platform scale.
The makers of this weigher considered the small sketch prepared by the inspector, which you kindly forwarded to them and, which, he states, ' would convey to them the groundwork of success in developing and perfecting of their grain weigher ' ; but, after carefully considering this sketch and with every desire to improve their machine by the utilization of Mr. Fyfe's idea, they are forced to the conclusion that the adoption of his ideas would not only not improve their machine, but would render it absolutely useless as a grain weigher. In this sketch Mr. Fyfe employs four more knife edge bearings that are in use in the Standard Grain Weigher, and he expresses the opinion that, if this sketch is adopted, it will weigh accurately and meet all the requirements of the Weights and Measures Act, but, in his subsequent report of April 1st, on page 52 of the report, he contradicts this by the statement, ' In my opinion, the use of a knife scale for the purpose intended is impracticable, as it is impossible to weigh correctly on account of the vibration of the machine in threshing.' In penning this last quoted sentence, he has evidently forgotten that, in his report of March 27th, on page 50 of the report, he states ' The nucleus of a good serviceable scale is embodied in the machine presented for admission.' In his report of April 1st, page 21, he speaks of his long experience as a scale manufacturer and of his employment by capitalists to investigate and report on patent weighing machines, and follows up with the gratuitous statement that ' the makers of the machine in question have designed it from a purely mechanical standpoint, without regard, not only to the Weights and Measures requirements, but without regard to the demands of science in the application of leverage and gravity.' The inventors of the Standard Grain Weigher are practical men, who, we venture to say, know quite as much of the demands of science in the application of leverage and gravity as Mr. Fyfe does. Not only this, but the machine in question has been submitted to the inspection of one of the largest scale manufacturers in the United States, who has given it his unqualified approval after careful examination, not of fifteen minutes, but an examination and test extending over several days. The makers of this device have given special study to the principles involved in the building of weighing machines, with a full knowledge of all the surrounding *circumstances1 and the conditions under which Mr. STEWART.
it has to be operated, advantages which Mr. Fyfe has not enjoyed.
If this machine or any other weighs accurately, why should it not be admitted us a special weighing machine in this business ? There is nothing that it weighs but grain, and when the threshing machine is worn out, it is thrown on the scrap heap.


The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE.: 1 may say to my hon. friend that I would not have brought the name of Mr. Magness into the discussion if it had not been for the fact that the department was made aware that he was the inventor of the machine. On the 3rd of June, last year, he wrote the following letter :
I wrote Mr. C. Higman on May 27th, that it was important to me that he should make his report on the Standard Grain Weigher presented by me to the department, so that I could get a letter saying it was accepted or otherwise. I know it is necessary that I should forward a full sized machine for the standard room, also photo cut for circular. I intend to send one of the first batch made, but it takes some time to get the parts in quantities.
A party here is anxious to buy the Canadian right to build them, but I have no proof it has been accepted.
An early reply will greatly oblige.
Later on Mr. Magness, who was given every means to perfect his machine, was asked by the department to come down here with it, and was informed that he could not be both the inventor and the inspector of the machine. On the 17th of June, a letter was written to him, from which I take the following extract :
I have serious doubts as to the advisability of your being connected in any way, with the manufacture and sale of this thresher scale. 1 am not aware of the exact position in which you will stand at the time this scale will be placed upon the market. While it will be a great boon to the people of the west to have a properly inspected scale for use with the threshers, and while the matter is one in which the department is much interested, I am of the opinion that it would be most objectionable for you, as an inspector of weights and measures to be connected with its manufacture or sale.
We bad no correspondence with any other gentleman in reference to that scale than Mr. Magness himself. After he received our letter of the 17th of June, he wrote to Mr. Gerald, the Deputy Minister of Inland Revenue, on the 10th of the same month, as follows :
In reply to your letter of the 7th ult., I beg leave to say that I hold a third interest in the Globe Machine Company, who own the Standard Grain Weigher ; after my return from Ottawa our solicitor, T. J. Mathers, who is also solicitor for the Department of Justice, advised me to transfer my interest to him to hold in trust for me, which I have done, therefore, my name will not appear in any form when the company's Act of incorporation appears in the Manitoba ' Gazette.'
I intend to sell my interest in Canada at the first opportunity for anything like a fair price, which I cannot get now until the machine ha3 proved itself in the field, which we will do this

fall ; then I know there will be parties ready to buy.
On the 7th of October last, Mr. Maguess again wrote to the deputy minister, as follows :	i ^
Replying to your letter of the 7th of June, 1902, asking me to define my position re ' Standard Grain Weigher,' and my private letter replying thereto, I wish now to supplement or rather replace that letter :
I, therefore, beg to notify you that I have disposed of all my Canadian interest in tha*t grain weigher, and am neither directly nor indirectly connected with its sale or in the profits arising therefrom.
I trust this may relieve the department of all the anxiety and annoyance my former connection in this matter may have engendered.
After we had this correspondence we wrote to the Globe Manufacturing Company, which I presume has supplied my hon. friend with a report and with the exchange of correspondence between Mr. Fyfe and the gentleman connected with that firm. The following message was sent to the Globe Manufacturing Company, Winnipeg, Manitoba :
Ottawa, May 29, 1903.
Please send department exact diagram or drawings of thresher scales as submitted to department.


W. J. GERALD.
[Stage Direction]
The following answer came from the Canadian Pacific Railway Telegraph Company : -Give some address Globe Manufacturing Company. The following reply was sent to the Canadian Pacific Railway :
Address can be ascertained from R. Magness, inspector of weights and measures.

[Stage Direction]
We received in reply from the Canadian Pacific Railway the following message ' Yours of the twenty-ninth to the Globe Manufacturing Company delivered.'
So that we were always under the impression in the department that Mr. Magness had something to do with the manufacturing of the scales, or rather that he was the inventor. But this is not the most important point. I may say, in passing, that we have never troubled Mr. Magness on account of his being the inventor, as we thought he was, but every hon. member will agree that it was preferable he should not inspect his own scales and that he should either stick to his invention or resign his position as inspector. But we never pressed him in that direction. The only correspondence that took place was for the purpose of informing him that if he was really the inventor and manufacturer and still retained some interest in the scale, it was not proper that he should inspect his own machine. With regard to the differences of opinion which might exist between our inspector and the gentleman who represented the interest of Mr. Magness, I have not much to say. I am not a practical man, and 132J
do not want to interfere between the two, but we have a report from Mr. Fyfe, who is considered not only a good practical man, but a man whose services as an expert have been utilized by large corporations such as the Canadian Pacific Railway and the Grand Trunk Railway. I do not suppose that my hon. friend would care to have to use a machine which could not be inspected according to the laws of the department, but we gave every facility to the Globe Manufacturing Company or anybody else to perfect a machine which would give satisfaction to everybody. This having failed, we thought that the best and surest way was to introduce legislation which, for a time at least, will remedy the evil of which the farmers of the west have complained. If we have not succeeded in placing on the statute-book a perfect law, we have done the best we could under the circumstances.
Mr. McCREARY.: Was Mr. Higman in the employ of the department as chief in-pector, and for what length of time, and what is his occupation now ?


The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE.: When we had no chief inspector, Mr. Higman used at times to inspect some of those scales, but he was never chief inspector of weights and measures. He was only chief electrician.


William Forsythe McCreary: This matter is somewhat mixed up. In the correspondence I have before me, which took place between the solicitors of this weighing machine company and the department, I find a letter of June the 17th, 1902, written to Mr. Robert Magness, inspector of weights and measures. Winnipeg :
Ottawa, June 17, 1902.
I have the honour to inform you that the Standard Grain Weigher, manufactured by the Globe Manufacturing Company of Winnipeg, has been examined and tested by the department, and the same has been admitted to verification in Canada.
1 have the honour to be,


O. HIGMAN,
[Stage Direction]
There you have official information from the department, with the knowledge of the hon. minister, that the officer, who had for many years been the only chief inspector of weights and measures in Canada, notified these gentlemen who were interested in this machine that it had been admitted to verification. Subsequently that machine was brought down here to be inspected by the Manitoba and territorial members, and was found to be correct. But at a later date some new light apparently came on the department, a new light had arisen in Israel in the person of Mr. Fyfe, who went back on the statement of Mr. Higman, and gave a lot of technical reasons to show why the machine was not correct. He subsequently, in a communication which I have not before me, reflects qu the members from Manitoba and the North-west, who advocated
[Stage Direction]
this machine. Could they have done otherwise when they had the report of the highest official of the department that it was perfect ? Why does not Mr. Fyfe reflect on that official ? We have not beard the hon. minister say why that official was discharged or what he is doing now. But we have a verification of this machine-not by either one of these technically instructed men, men who were accustomed to see threshing done by the flail and weighed by the steelyard, and who know nothing about threshing as it is done on a large scale-but by farmers who have used it. I have letters from many of them, showing that this machine has done perfect work, and I would put their evidence every day against the evidence of men who have only technical knowledge. Another objection is that Mr. Magness was interested in the patent and should not be inspector. Well, if that were the case, it was the duty of the minister to dismiss him. As a matter of fact, I know that Mr. Magness had nothing to do with the patent. It is true that he acquired an interest in it, and if that was contrary to the rules of the department, the minister should have at once discharged him. I submit that this Bill should stand over, and if necessary we should have some farmers brought down here to give evidence under oath who have tested this machine. Ten or fifteen can be brought, and I think that any hon. gentleman will take their opinion, based on a practical test, in preference to that of Inspector Fyfe, with all his great ability.
The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE.: I have said already that Mr. Higman has never been chief inspector. I do not sec why so much objection should be raised to this provision of the law, because it is only intended to allow the use of some machine. We are bound to do something, and, in order to enable Mr. Magness, or the Globe Manufacturing Company, or anybody else, to have the machine under their control or any other machine brought into use, we are introducing legislation in order that we may permit the use of any of these machines. Otherwise, they could not be legally used, unless we changed the whole law. This is a law of exceptions, it is a temporary law. I think that my hon. friend may be led into error in saying that Mr. Fyfe was discourteous to the hon. members from Manitoba and the North-west Territories. I do not so interpret his letter. The members from Manitoba and the North-west Territories were anxious that this machine should be supplied in order to be ready for last fall. What would be the result, even if farmers from Manitoba and the North-west were brought here to show that the machine was working well ? I do not say that it is not working well. But what I say is that, as the law is now it cannot be inspected ; and, in order to remedy that, and not to destroy the law entirely, I am now introducing a Bill by


William Forsythe McCreary: which that machine or any other may be used under certain conditions without inspection.


Nathaniel Boyd: Are there any special weighing machines at the present time in existence under license from the government?


The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE.: We have some. But a weighing machine is needed in the North-west Territories.


Nathaniel Boyd: I think that the evidence brought before the committee by the discussion that bas taken place shows one thing very clearly-that through a spat, or misunderstanding, or whatever you call it, amongst the officers of the department over which the hon. gentleman presides, the farmers may suffer, or, rather, not the farmers, but those who have done five million dollars worth of work not a dollar of which they can legally collect for. And the correspondence brought down contains a letter from the chief inspector which was a gross piece of impertinence to the members of this House from Manitoba and the North-west Territories. The responsibility for that, if the truth were known, rested upon the minister himself and his officers, for the desire of the members from Manitoba and the North-west was not that any particular machine should be adopted-not at all. It was the minister and his officers that brought this machine to the attention of the members from Manitoba and the North-west. In order to relieve the situation, the members from Manitoba and the North-west were prepared to accept it. And then to have these imputations cast upon them by an employee, a man who we are paying, decidedly too much. But while he thought he was reflecting upon the members from Manitoba and the North-west, he was reflecting upon his own minister and his predecessor. As has been shown by the correspondence, Mr. Higman verified this machine. The minister, in his speech a little while ago said that Mr. Higman had done this without authority. But I have here the correspondence. Under date of [DOT]Tune 3rd, Mr. Magness writes to the deputy minister :
I wrote Mr. O. Higman on May 27, that it was important to me that he should make his report on the standard grain weigher presented by me to the department.
And, in the reply of the deputy minister, you will find this paragraph :
I will bring the matter ot thresher scale to Mr. Higman's attention as soon as he returns to Ottawa, and the stereo should he sent in as soon as possible.
Does the minister wish the committee to believe that Mr. Higman made the report without any suggestion from any other officer ? Was it not more likely that the matter was brought to his attention as the deputy minister said, and that, in pursuance of instructions given him, he inspected the machine and made the report read by the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. McCreary).

And then, this man was brought in from Montreal and pitchforked over the heads of men who, I believe, and I am sure the majority of the officers of the department believe, were his superiors in their qualifications for dealing with this matter. And this man, when he comes in. says : I am going to do this thing myself ; I am going to have a measuring machine that will measure which weighs about five hundred pounds and will hang on the top of the thresher twenty feet high. His action was enough to show that, as the hon. member for Selkirk said, while he could deal with matters involving flails and reaping hooks, he was utterly incompetent to comprehend the conditions under which the work must be done to-day. And the members from Manitoba and' the North-west Territories whose constituents are suffering through this delay and this quarrel in the department, are supposed to stand by and wait.


The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE.: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Boyd) says that a reflection was cast upon the members from Manitoba and the North-west by this report. Let me read the portion of the report referred to, and I will leave it to the judgment of the House if there is in it any bad feeling or any manifestation of a desire to reflect on any hon. members of this House :
The members who are fighting the battle for the ' Grain threshing scale ' makers, do not seem to see that they are unknowingly occupying a false position, opposed to their own interests and to the Interests of those they represent.


Nathaniel Boyd: Hear, hear.


The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE.: My hon. friend (Mr. Boyd) and I may differ as to the capacity of this man, but I have stated, and I repeat, that he was not brought here because he came from Montreal, but lie was brought here because he was recognized as the best man who could be found throughout the whole Dominion for this work. And if my hon. friend doubts that, if he will come to my office at any time I shall be glad to show him letters from the scale manufacturers and merchants, throughout the Dominion, men of both political parties, strongly recommending that Mr. Fyfe should be selected for this work. The letter goes on, still speaking of the members from Manitoba and the North-west:
They have within reach an article that will meet the requirements of law, which can be made by any manufacturer without rpyalty, and yet they aje trying to force upon the farmers of the North-west an inferior machine that is patented and exclusive property of one manufacturer.
So, Mr. Fyfe cautions the hon. members from Manitoba and the North-west against the danger of having only one machine, and tells them there is a machine all ready to their hands. And he says they should not compel the people to use or the
department to inspect and verify a scale which is not complete according to the requirements of the law.


Nathaniel Boyd: Who introduced that machine to the attention of members of the House ?


The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE.: Mr. Magness.


Nathaniel Boyd: Not at all, it was the Minister of Inland Revenue.


The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE.: No, we must not be mistaken. I have the whole correspondence here. Mr. Magness informed me that he was perfecting a machine which he thought might be inspected, and after he had submitted it to me, Mr. Higman, who I repeat has never been a chief inspector of weights and measures, asked Mr. Magness to come down with this machine in order to have it tested by a man of experience. Before that test was made, I presume the members of the Northwest had examined it and found it satisfactory ; still when we decided to inspect the machine, we called in the services of a man of experience. The objection is not against the machine itself. The real difficulty is to devise some means by which the farmers and the owners of the threshing machines may settle their difficulties without the intervention of a court. What would be the use of having a scale inspected which mighe be set aside by a court of justice, and thus multiply the expenses ? We have done the best we could, and now we have come to the conclusion that, pending the time when we get a machine that will meet the requirements of the law, we had better introduce this legislation, which I hope will give relief to a certain extent.


Mr. SCOTT.: Mr. Chairman, so long as we arrive at the desired end, I do not know that we need care just by what particular road the end is reached. I think the Bill will meet the object which we all have in view. It indirectly legalizes this machine which we are discussing, or any other machine on which the threshers and farmers may agree. I trust, therefore, that the Bill may pass. But I wish to endorse what has been said by the hon. member for Macdonald (Mr. Boyd) in regard to the attitude and action of this officer of the Inland Revenue Department. I am disposed to agree entirely with the minister, that Mr. Fyfe is an exceedingly clever gentleman ; my own opinion is that he is too clever by half. I have read with some care the report that he has made regarding this automatic weighing device, and also the document that is at present in the possession of the hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Stewart) answering the objections made by Mr. Fyfe. In one paragraph of this report which has already been read to the House, he suggests that he has recommended one machine, and I would point out to the minister that in that ma-

chine which Mr. Fyfe himself suggests, there are some of the same defects that he contends exist in the other machine which he condemns. The paragraph of Mr. Fyfe's report which is complained of is the following
The members who are fighting the battle for the ' Grain Threshing Scale ' makers, do not seem to see that they are unknowingly occupying a false position, opposed to their own interests and to the interests of those they represent. They have within reach an article that will meet the requirements of the law, which can be made by any manufacturer, without royalty, and yet they are trying to force upon the farmers of the North-west an inferior machine that is patented and exclusive property of one manufacturer.
The members from Manitoba and the Northwest may perhaps be super-sensitive, but I am bouud to say that I entirely agree with what has been said by my hon. friend from Macdonald with regard to this paragraph. Of course, we all know that there are men who think they can run other peoples' businesses better than those people themselves. I suppose it has always been the case that there are certain members of the civil service at Ottawa who think that they can govern this Dominion a great deal better than parliament, and that it would be a great deal better if parliament were abolished and the government were left In their own hands. That may be perfectly true, but so long as the people, under the constitution, elect representatives to frame legislation, I think it would be well for every minister of the Crown to see that the officers under him do not cast such reflections upon members of this House as are cast by this paragraph. So long as we are sent here as representatives of the people, I beg to say that we are under no obligation or necessity to put up with the insolence of language which this officer introduces in his report.
Bill reported, read the third time, and passed.


DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC PRINTING AND STATIONERY.
[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 182) to amend chapter 27 of the revised statutes respecting the Department of Public Printing and Stationery (the Minister of Justice) read the second time, and House went into committee thereon.
On section 1,
The MINISTER OF JUSTICE (Hon. Chas. Fitzpatrick).: The amendment is in the twentieth line in which the words ' not exceeding customary and fair commercial rates for similar work or supplies in similar quantities ' are substituted for these words in the Act of 1893 ' not exceeding that which would be charged for such printing ' at the Printing Bureau. Under the Statute of 1S93 authority was given to the government to Mr. SCOTT.
have the printing which was required for the Intercolonial Railway and Prince Edward Island Railway done elsewhere than at the Printing Bureau, and a provision was made in the Statute of 1893 that the cost of such printing should not exceed the cost at the Printing Bureau in Ottawa. That was found to be impracticable and as a result the work was always done at the printing offices in the maritime provinces ,at a cost exceeding the cost at which the work could be done at the Printing Bureau, and the King's Printer, Dr. Dawson, invariably certified the accounts as fair and reasonable. This went on from 1893 until November, 1902, when the Auditor General discovered that the certificates were not according to law, and as a result you will find a very protracted correspondence that was exchanged between the Printing Bureau and the Auditor General at page W-377 of the Auditor General's Report. The very minute the Auditor General objected to this certificate given by the King's Printer, the matter was referred to the Department of Justice, and we were obliged to report that the certificate was not sufficient under the statute, and that, while the custom had become almost equivalent to law, as objection had been taken by the Auditor General, there was nothing to do but to conform to the strict enforcement of the statute. As a result it has been found necessary to give statutory effect to the custom which has prevailed for years, and to substitute for the words in the old statute that at a cost not exceeding that which would be charged for .such printing at the Printing Bureau ; these words ' at customary and fair commercial rates for similar work or supplies in similar quantities.'


Robert Laird Borden: Would the hon. Minister of Justice tell us what the average difference in cost is and what proportion of the stationery of the Intercolonial Railway and the Prince Edward Island Railway is done in offices other than the Printing Bureau ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: I cannot give the hon. gentleman (Mr. Borden, Halifax) the difference in cost, but I can give the rates that are paid. In an Order in Council passed in December, 1893, the rates for this printing were established and I have the figures here. The Order in Council has attached to it a schedule of the prices allowed for printing, &c., done outside of the Printing Bureau for the Intercolonial Railway and the Prince Edward Island Railways. These rates are as follows
Schedule of Prices allowed for printing, &c., done outside the Bureau for the Inter- " colonial Railway.
Cents.
Composition, tabular	 70
Composition, plain	 35
Alterations from copy per hour.. ..	25

Cents.
Press work, per token	 25
Ruling per hour	40 & 50
Folding per 100	7&8
Gathering and stitching per 100.. ..	8
Pasting covers per 100	 40
Perforating per 1,000	 25
Padding, per pad of 100 (Av.)	 2
Number, per 100	*. ..	3
Paging, per 100	 3
1 cannot give the difference in cost between the two, but the superintendent drew my attention to the fact that a large portion of his work is the printing of tickets used on the railway and he says that to equip a department such as would be requred to have this work done would cost about $50,000, and that it would be necessary to have a room in which the officials would be kept apart and treated in the same way as the officials of the Bank Note Company are treated, because these tickets are equivalent to cash and they would be dealt with in that way. In addition to that my attention has been drawn, referring to the correspondence that was exchanged at the time this Order in Council was passed in 1893, to the fact that the Printing Bureau never have charged anything for capital, insurance, wear and tear and various other items that form a very considerable ingredient in the estimate of cost of work done in an ordinary commercial establishment. You have also to bear in mind that there are no customs duties to be paid in connection with work done at the Printing Bureau which would have to be charged in connection with the work done on an ordinary commercial basis. I am not able to give the difference in cost between the rates for work done in an ordinary printing office and in the Printing Bureau, because they have not done such work at the Printing Bureau and they do not know what it would cost. These are the difficulties which were pointed out when this course was adopted in 1893. and this course has since then proved perfectly fair and reasonable.


Robert Laird Borden: I should think the amount to be paid should be in accordance with fair commercial rates, but if these fair commercial rates are somewhat higher than the rates charged at the Printing Bureau it would seem to be reasonable that this printing should be done at the Printing Bureau as far as possible. I can appreciate what the hon. minister says in regard to the tickets, but I should think that a large portion of the matter required by these railways could be printed at the Printing Bureau. The printing of forms and other printing of that character, I should think, could be done there because you know some time in advance how much you will require and there seems to be no reason why that should not be done in the Printing Bureau. Perhaps the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals (Hon. Mr. Blair) could tell us what portion of the work is done in
the Printing Bureau and what portion is done elsewhere.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS (Hon. A. G. Blair).: I could not tell that very well at present. We are continuing the practice about on the same basis in that regard as it has been continued for a long period of years. The arrangement which my hon. friend the Hon. Minister of Justice says was made in 1893 was a well considered arrangement. It was reported upon and the views of the King's Printer were had on the subject. He argued the question, presented the reasons pro and con, the Auditor General agreed and it was submitted to the Governor in Council and approved of, and from that time down till November of last year the scale was continued uniformly and on the same basis and the printing was done at the various points along the route of the railway. The present action results from the view which the Auditor General took. I have not, in my mind, at the present moment, an accurate idea as to' what portion of the printing is done in the Bureau and what portion outside. I would not like to state my view because I might fall short or exceed the fact, but I have no accurate idea of what portion of the printing is done in the Bureau or as to the difference between the charges, but the charges are based upon the rate which was adopted in 1893, and which has been uniformly continued for nine or ten years. I do know but that it is quite impossible to do a considerable portion of the work here. The distance is so great, and the necessity of sending the work back and forth for correction and so on, makes it impossible to do the work here with despatch. There are at present enough delays without needlessly increasing them. No public interest suffers by this. I would think that the clause which was decided upon after being well considered by the responsible and independent officers of the government in 1893, might very well be passed, as it is in this Bill.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: I wish to read from a letter written by the Controller of Stationery and Queen's Printer in 1893, when this legislation was first considered :
In the case of items (as railway tickets and coupons) which have never been done at the Bureau the rates paid by other railways were ascertained and similar rates were allowed. This method was continued for the three months from January 1, 1893, to April 1. On that day a statute was passed providing that such railway printing as it might suit the convenience . of the railway to have done elsewhere might be so done but that the price should not exceed that which would be charged for such printing at the Bureau.
While the prices in the schedule above referred to are such as would be charged under the ordinary conditions of the trade, the charges made to the department of government by the Bureau do not include rent, interest on capital, taxes, customs duty, general management, light.

fuel. It therefore followed that, under one construction, the statute practically prohibited any work from being done outside the Bureau ; while the apparent intention of the Act was to do the very reverse ; for it seems to be contemplated by the Act that there is a class of printing which it suits the best interests of the railway to have performed upon the spot.
As respects the work done on tickets, he says :
As I have pointed out in my annual reports the Bureau is overcrowded with work during the session of parliament and there is not room enough in the building for the hands required. If a revision of the voters lists happens to coincide with a session of parliament the pressure is very much intensified. During the recess the work falls off and men are discharged, but the business of the Bureau is exceedingly uneven. The railway work, however, if done at the Bureau, would have to take precedence of all other work ; whether there be a session of the House or a revision of the lists going on ; for railway work is of such a nature that the utmost despatch is imperatively required. It would no doubt be easy to arrange that by extending the eastern wing of the Bureau ; and an estimate was made some time ago to do that when it wa3 found that the cost would be about $50,000.
If iny lion, friend will look at page W-339 of the Auditor General he will find that the cost of printing and lithographing for the Prince Edward Island Railway was $4,-<198.19. I have not the returns for the Intercolonial Railway.


Mr. PUTTEE.: Where are the printing supplies obtained now ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: As I understand it most of the tickets in use on railways in Canada are printed in Buf-fa Io.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I was under the impression they were printed by the Perrault Printing Company of Montreal, which it is said is well equipped for that business. I have not had occasion personally to have anything to do with it, so that I am not certain as to that.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: I have been informed that nearly all the railway companies get their printing done in Buffalo because it cannot be done in Canada.


Arthur W. Puttee: As I understand it, the present law says that the Intercolonial Railway shall not pay higher rates for printing than the Government Printing Bureau at Ottawa could do the work for, and that this was not found to be practicable. The amendment is brought in so that the King's Printer may allow such just and reasonable rates as he thinks proper. That is the reason for the amendment.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: Partly.


Arthur W. Puttee: Does this refer to accounts which have already been incurred or to future work ?


Charles Fitzpatrick: 


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: To both.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: There are a number of printing bills unpaid since last November. They will not take the money that has been offered to them and at present if they do not do so they will get nothing.
On section 3,


Arthur W. Puttee: I suggest to the minister tlie striking out of the words ' with the approval of the minister,' so as to leave the Bureau under the control of a practical superintendent, who would carry it on the same as in an ordinary concern. I believe that involves the whole question of patronage in the Bureau, and that if these words be stricken out, political interference will be done away with and the Bureau operated with more profit and satisfaction to the country. Has the minister considered the striking out of these words ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: Yes, I have considered that. So long as we can have a King's Printer of the calibre of the gentleman at present occupying the office, I would feel perfectly safe, but no one can foretell what the future holds in store for us. I may safely say that there is no department connected with the government which is freer from political interference than the Department of Printing, but there must be some one responsible to this House, and that responsibility should rest on the shoulders of the minister. If you were to strike out these words it might mean that the House would hold the superintendent responsible. I think it is better that the responsibility should rest upon the minister.


Robert Laird Borden: Even with those words in I should think that the responsibility would be upon the minister.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: I presume so, but a doubt might be occasioned.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: It would depend upon whether the general provision of the statute declared that this department was under the control of the Secretary of State.


Robert Laird Borden: Of course, I assumed that the general statute did that. It would not be the case if there was not a general statute to that effect.


Arthur W. Puttee: Is it not a fact that the Superintendent of Printing has practically no discretion at all in the employment or discharge of the employees in the Bureau, but that the minister alone, subject to all the pressure that is brought to bear upon him, puts in or takes out any that he pleases ? Is it not a fact that people who go to work in that Bureau can absolutely defy the officers of the Bureau ; that there is no officer there who has any power to discharge a man ; that if a man does not

do the work at all, or whether he is competent or not, or even if he appears there regularly under the influence of liquor, no one in the Bureau can discharge him ? This I think, is involved in that question of having the approval of the minister ; everything is involved in that. I do not wish tlie minister to understand me in any way to criticise the present Superintendent of Printing. I quite agree with him that if we could he sure of having such a Superintendent there in the future, it would be wise to give him full control ; but I do not think that even the present King's Printer is the only one, and that he can never have a successor. When the time comes, I think the minister will be able to choose just as competent and worthy a Superintendent of Printing as we have at the present time. I make this suggestion, because I believe it would do away with a good deal of the trouble which the government has had to shoulder lately in connection with the Printing Bureau.
On the schedule,
Order in Council.
On a report, dated 27th November, 1893, from the Secretary of State, stating that, with a view to prevent any unreasonable increase to the cost of work by gradual accretions to the rates of wages paid at the Printing Bureau, it is expedient to lay down the principle that the rates of wages paid to the operatives employed should be based upon the current rates for similar work throughout the Dominion, and that, for more special guidance to the officers of the department, it is advisable to order that the rates of wages in the cities of Montreal and Toronto shall, for the future, be taken as a standard not to be exceeded.


Arthur W. Puttee: May I ask the minister, has this been observed in the past V Is that what is governing there now ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: I understand that the rule laid down by the Order in Council has been strictly observed up to the present time.


Arthur W. Puttee: Of course, the minister knows that there has been a good deal of difference of opinion as to what are the rates of wages in the cities of Montreal and Toronto. There is no agreement on that subject at all, and I would like to know whether he has any plan of ascertaining what are the rates of wages in those two cities ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: Surely it ought to be possible for a practical printer to ascertain what are the rates prevailing in a printing establishment in Montreal or Toronto.


Arthur W. Puttee: It is, as a matter of fact, a very hard question to determine, because there is a difference between the two cities in that respect. Toronto has a higher wage scale, so far as printing is concerned, than Montreal. But I think the point to be determined here is, what is to be taken as the
rate of wages ? Is it the average rate ? If so, how is that average rate to be ascertained ? I would suggest that the city of Ottawa be included, or else that only one city be taken. As a matter of fact, you cannot get the average of three cities, because there would be no fair basis. If there is to be any real attempt to carry out the idea of this clause, it should be amended by adding that this rate shall be ascertained by the fair wage officer once every year or once every two years ; otherwise there is no way of being sure what is the current rate. Now, I am aware what this question involves, because it has been discussed lately. It is claimed that the men in the Bureau are getting higher wages than those which prevail in Montreal, in Toronto, or in Ottawa. It is claimed, without any proof being brought forward, that they are getting more than the union rate of wages in those cities. Most people who know very little about trades organizations maintain that a union fixes a rate of wages which every body must get-a maximum rate. In the printing business this is altogether wrong. The union only sets a minimum rate. I believe the minimum rate in Montreal is $12 a week. The current rate for competent men is far above that. There are plenty of men in the city of Montreal to-day getting twice what the union calls for. In the city of Toronto, I believe the minimum rate is $12.50. The current average rate would be about $15. Whether the minister recognizes the fact or not, the ascertaining of tile rates in either of these cities is a very complicated question. In the Bureau at the present time there is a flat rate for every man, whether he is competent or not. The government have put in force that very principle which we object to in trades organizations, that a flat rate should be enforced, that ability should not be worth more than non-abilitv. At the present time the rate is higher than the minimum rate in either Montreal or Toronto. At the same time, if this provision is to go into effect, it should be understood whether it is the current average rate or the current minimum rate that is to be fixed, and some machinery should be provided for ascertaining the rate. The rates of wages in Montreal and Toronto have been gradually rising. In Toronto they are lower to-day than they should be, because two years ago the employers and employees signed a scale covering three years, and, although they are loyally standing by that agreement, yet, as a matter of fact there are very few men getting as low a rate as the agreement calls for. Therefore, I am sure that the minister will see that it is by no means definitely settled what the rates are in those two cities. Then there is this other fact, that the two cities differ materially. They have never had the same basis. Toronto has been never so low down as the city of Montreal. Again the institution to which this will apply is
I

not like any In either of those cities, and whether higher or lower, the rate should be fixed on the average actually prevailing.


Joseph Israël Tarte: The way we fix prices in Montreal is this : The employers and the printers talk the matter over. The employers discuss the prices with the leaders of the union, and these prices are fixed for the year. The agreement binds both parties, and either party has a right to put an end to it by giving so many months notice.
I believe that that is a very fair way of settling things. We have no trouble whatever with our men. The men employed in the office with which I am connected are all union men. Their wages are fixed in the way I have pointed out, and I do not see why the same process should not be followed here. The King's Printer occupies the position of employer in any office where union men are employed. I believe that the way I have pointed out is a very fair way and that my hon. friend is taking a wrong standpoint. Let the men and the employers come together as closely as they can. One reason why there is no trouble between employers and printers is because we have daily relations together. I suppose that I see the men employed in my office ten times a day, I am glad to see them and they are not sorry to see me. We have one man who has been with us for twenty-five years, and who is counted as one of ourselves. My hon. friend is taking a wrong stand in asking for an outside party. Although I recognize the ability of some of the men in the Labour Bureau, I think that the best and most rational way is to have the employers and employees settle wages and their business relations together. That is what is done in Montreal. If my hon. friend will do us the pleasure to come and see us, he will find harmony and amity and good will between employers and employees. Again, I ask why the same process, which is successfully carried out in Montreal, should not be carried out here ? My hon. friend takes a standpoint which is not right.


Arthur W. Puttee: Is the hon. gentleman referring to me or the minister ?


Joseph Israël Tarte: I am referring to my hon. friend just opposite. Let the King's Printer discuss prices with the recognized leaders of the men. If union men have to be employed in the Bureau, as they are in all the offices in Montreal, I do not see any reason why the King's Printer and tlie men should not live in peace and harmony.


Arthur W. Puttee: My hon. friend is mistaken in referring to me as wishing to go out to a third party. I object to this Bill because it goes out to a third party. It goes out to find the rates of wages in other cities. If that is to be followed there should be a rule laid down as to how it is to be Mr. PUTTEE.
carried out and what rate you are to find out whether a minimum or current rate. I think the hon. member for St. Mary's is mixing me up with the minister.


Joseph Israël Tarte: No, I think if things were pushed to a right conclusion, there would be no necessity for a scale of wages at all, because it seems to me that the employees of the Printing Bureau should be placed on the very same basis as ourselves. There is no reason why they should be better treated and have less working hours, and there is no reason why they should be put on a better footing than printers elsewhere. Elsewhere we do not call upon anybody to discuss wages with our men, and we and our men are working in great harmony, indeed.


Matthew Henry Cochrane: Is there any difference in the scale of wages ? I understood by the Ottawa papers that the strike in the Bureau was uncalled for, because the printers got more wages than the same class of men on the city papers. Is that the case or is it not ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: I cannot tell what is paid by the city papers. But I may say that the wages paid at the Bureau are higher than those paid at the city offices. There are also advantages connected with employment at the Printing Bureau that outside men do not enjoy. The minimum rate of wages paid at the Printing Bureau per week is $13.50 for forty-eight hours' work.


Andrew B. Ingram: What class of men is that V


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: T apprehend that the best men are paid higher wages than the minimum rates, and in addition they have the following holidays, for which they are paid: New Year's Day, Good Friday, Queen's Birthday, Dominion Day, Labour Day, Thanksgiving Day, Christmas Day. In addition they are frequently granted holidays, such as a half a day during exhibition week or on other special occasions.


Matthew Henry Cochrane: AVliat is the maximum rate V


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: I do not know. I asked about the rate, and I received from the King's Printer a rather interesting reply. He said that if any person not familiar with the practical work of a printer will allow himself to be drawn into a discussion on such a highly technical matter as rates of wages and of classes of work, he would be as helpless as an ordinary layman would be in discussing points of law in the company of lawyers.


Matthew Henry Cochrane: He does not know as much about lawyers as we do in this House.


Andrew B. Ingram: It would be interesting if we had the rates of wages paid ail the men.

I think we would find some paid at $1.50 per week.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: I think that there are some boys from twelve to thirteen years old employed to carry paper from one room to another at a dollar and a half a week.


Andrew B. Ingram: Are there not girls employed ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: That is not in my department ?
Bill reported, read the third time, and passed.


THE DESJARDINS CANAL.
[Stage Direction]
statutes of 1892, is amended by striking out all the words after the word ' inventor ' in the thirteenth line thereof.
Notwithstanding anything contained in said section 8, or in the said substituted section, no Canadian patent heretofore issued shall be deemed to have expired before the end of the term for which it was granted merely because of the expiry of a foreign patent for the same invention.
Robert Laird Borden: What is the effect of this ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: This affects one of the most important provisions of the present law. If the hon. member will refer to the present Act he will find :
Bill (No. 183) respecting the DesJardins canal (the Minister of Justice) read the second time and the House went into committee thereon.
On section 1,


Robert Laird Borden: This Bill is fully explained by the recitals and by the statement of the hon. minister with regard to it on its first reading.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE. (Hon. Charles Fitzpatrick).: It was explained more fully by the hon. member for Hamilton (Mr. Barker). It is an involved complicated question and he understands it better than I I do.
Bill reported, read the third time, and passed.


PATENT ACT AMENDMENT.
[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 184) to amend the Patent Act (the Minister of Agriculture) read the second time and House went into committee thereon.
On section 1,
1. The deputy commissioner of patents may do any acit or thing, whether judicial or ministerial, which the commissioner of patents is authorized or empowered to do by any provision of the Patent Act (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) or by any Act in amendment thereof,; and, in the absence of the deputy commissioner and person performing the duties of the Deputy Minister of Agriculture pursuant to section 14 of the Civil Service Act may, as acting deputy commissioner, do any such act or thing.
Robert Laird Borden: WThat is the provision of the Civil Service Act here referred to ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE (Hon. Sydney Fisher).: It is that council may appoint a chief clerk to act for and do the work of the deputy commissioner, and consequently it applies to the portion of this clause which refers to the acting commissioner.
On section 2,
The section substituted for section 8 of the said Act, by section 1 of chapter 24 of the
Under any circumstances the existence of the Canadian patent shall expire at the earliest date on which the foreign patent of the same invention expires.
This has been the law in Canada for many years, and it was for some years the law in both England and the United States. Both those countries have repealed that provision of their law, and in consequence many eases of hardship have arisen to our own inventors. It is intended to make the life of a Canadian patent entirely independent of the life of the same patent in a foreign country.


Robert Laird Borden: What was the object of inserting these words in the first instance ? I understand that this provision which is being struck out of this section does not now exist in Great Britain and the United States.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: In England it was repealed in 1S93 and in the United States in 1897. In a general way the patent office of the United States has quite approved of this, and has found its operation more satisfactory. The patent solicitors of Canada are all in favour of it, as well as the patentees. I may say also that last year an eminent authority on patent law in Great Britain, Mr. Lloyd Wise, stated that the working out of this change in the British law was eminently satisfactory, and strongly recommended us to do the same.
On subsection 2 of section 2,
Notwithstanding anything contained in the said section 8, or in the said substituted section no Canadian patent heretofore issued shall be deemed to have expired before the end of the term for which it was granted merely because of the expiry of a foreign patent for the same Invention.


Robert Laird Borden: Will there be any difficulty in connection with patents that are supposed to have expired, and which have therefore been used generally in this country ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: We have later on in this Act a section which preserves all rights acquired. In section 14 it is provided that any acquired rights under

such expiry as the hon. gentleman alludes to shall he protected.
On section 4,
Every patent granted under the said Act shall, unless otherwise ordered by the commissioner as hereinafter provided, be subject and expressed to be subject to the following conditions :-
(a.) Such patent and all the rights and privileges thereby granted shall cease and determine, and the patent shall be null and void at the end of two years from the date thereof, unless the patentee or his legal representatives, within that period or an authorized extension thereof, commence, and after such commencement continuously carry on in Canada, the construction or manufacture of the invention patented, in such a manner that any person desiring to use it may obtain it, or cause it to be made for him at a reasonable price, at some manufactory or establishment for making or constructing it in Canada ; .
(b.) If, after the expiration of twelve months from the granting of a patent, or an authorized extension of such period, the patentee or patentees, or any of them, or his or their or any of their legal representatives, for the whole or a part of his or their or any of their interest in the patent, imports or import or causes or cause to be imported into Canada, the invention for which the patent is granted, such patent shall be void as to the interest of the person or persons so importing or causing to be imported.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: There are one or two verbal changes only, but they do not in any way change the sense. The first strikes out the words ' or his assignee' in subsection A of section 4, these words being superfluous. The word ' any ' is changed to ' an ' because it is clear under the judgment of the Supreme Court that only one exception can be granted. The same changes are made in paragraph B, but the sense is not changed.
On section 7,
On the application of the applicant for a patent, previous to the issue thereof, or on che application within six months after the issue thereof, or on the application within six months after the issue of the patent of the patentee or his legal representatives, or on the application within six months hereafter of the owner of any patent heretofore issued and now in force or by this Act revived, the commissioner, having regard to the nature of the invention, may order that such patent, instead of being subject to the condition set forth in paragraph (a) of section four of this Act, shall be subject to the following conditions, that is to say :-
(a.) Any person, at any time while the patent continues in force, may apply to the Commissioner by petition for a license to make, construct, U3e and sell the patented invention, and the commissioner shall, subject to general rules to be made for carrying out- this section, hear the person applying and the owner of the patent. and if he is satisfied that the reasonable requirements of the public in reference to the invention have not been satisfied by reason of the neglect or refusal of the patentee or hts legal representatives to make, construct, use or sell the invention, or to grant licenses to others on reasonable terms to make, construct,


Hon. Mr. FISHER.: use or sell the same, may make an order under his hand and the seal of the patent office requiring the owner of the patent to grant a license to the person applying therefor, in such form, and upon such terms as to the duration of the license, the amount of the royalties, security for payment, and otherwise, as the commissioner, having regard to the nature of the invention and the circumstances of the case, deems just ;
(b.) The commissioner may, if he thinks fit, and shall ,on the request lof either of the parties to the proceedings, call in the aid of an assessor, specially qualified, and hear the case wholly or partially with his assistance ;
(e.) The existence of one or more licenses shall not be a bar to an order by the commissioner for, or to the granting of, a license on any application, under this section ; and
(d.) The patent and all rights and privileges thereby granted shall cease and determine, and the patent shall be null and void, if the commissioner makes an order requiring the owner of the patent to grant any license, and the owner of the patent refuses or neglects to comply with such order within three calendar months next after a copy of it Is addressed to him or to his duly authorized agent.


Robert Laird Borden: Is this legislation founded upon legislation in any other country, or is it entirely new ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: It is practically identical with legislation which has been adopted in England recently. Mr. Lloyd Wise has worked out the problem, has submitted his conclusions to the parliament of Great Britain and has recommended them to us. I may say that the reason why this legislation seems to be necessary at the present time is that the Supreme Court decided that a patentee, being prepared to supply the goods in Canada on demand was not sufficient justification for the life of a patent. Until that decision of the Supreme Court, the patent officer had always held and the courts had also held that if a patentee was ready to supply the goods hut did not manufacture them his patent remained valid. After the decision of the Supreme Court tn December last in the case of Powell vs. Griffin, I think it was, it is evident that the practice of the department and these rulings of the courts were not sustained, and today, if the patentee does not actually manufacture or produce the article in Canada within a certain time his patentee becomes null and void. There are classes of patents under which it is practically impossible for the patentee to produce or manufacture the article in Canada. One of these classes refers to an article of great construction, a class of articles or things of which practically only one or two would be constructed in the country. For instance there is a graving dock or a lift lock, such as has recently been constructed on the canal, or an elevator, things that are patentable hut the use of which is very rare, and to require that a patent shall expire if it has not been made use of and the thing has not been constructed in the country is certainly an in-

justice and is destroying the object and aim of the patent law of encouraging inventors to invent these things and get them patented. This Bill provides machinery by which, when the patentee has such a patent as that, he can apply to the commissioner and protect himself without actually constructing the thing or getting it constructed because he makes provision by which, if it is required in the country, it can be constructed, and this section puts into the hands of the commissioner of patents the entire control of the terms and conditions under which construction shall be carried out under a reasonable and fair basis to both the patentee and the person who wishes to use the patent. There is another class of patents which would come under this provision and that is the class called patents of processes, for instance, a patent for using a chemical process in manufacture. This is a class of patents which cannot be used unless the industry in which these processes are supposed to be useful is carried on in the country. If it is carried on and if the people who are carrying it on desire to use a patent such as this, then and then only, would the patentee be in a position to put the process into operation or sell his patent. Now, this thing is entirely out of the control of the patentee and it seems to me that it would be unreasonable that this patent should lapse and become void under such circumstances. That patent would also come under the provisions of this section; and enable the patentee to apply to come in under that clause and this enables the commissioner to control the arrangement under which he would retain his patent and provide proper facilities in the country for its use.


Andrew B. Ingram: The commissioner has the right to extend the time beyond the two years ?
The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE, the extension of time is the same under this clause as it is under the clauses of the other Act.


Andrew B. Ingram: If the patent is not called into use within a reasonable time the commissioner would have power to extend the time ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: The commissioner does not require to extend the time under this clause. The extensions of time to which the hon. gentleman refers could only apply to patents which did not come under the provisions of this clause and there is no change with regard to that.
At six o'clock, committee took recess.
After Recess.
Committee resumed at eight o'clock.
On section 7,


Robert Laird Borden: I understood from the minister that subsection (a) of this
Act was intended to give relief to the patentee with respect to certain articles that could only be manufactured from time to time for a special purpose. On looking at the section I cannot quite see that it has that effect. Suppose that no one makes this application to the commissioner in what way is the patentee relieved. It cannot be a relief to the patentee unless some one applies, and the statute surely does not presume that he shall appoint some one to collusively apply.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: When the patentee has made that application and it has been sanctioned by the commissioner, then the patent shall not be void from neglect to manufacture, sell or construct the article patented. The first part of the clause is really the important one and the remaining portions simply provide for the machinery. If the patentee was allowed to come in under this clause and then was allowed to make his own bargain with the licensee he could practically nullify the public interest in the patent.


Robert Laird Borden: That is perfectly clear.
On section 19, validity of certain extensions heretofore granted,


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: This danse is for the purpose of making valid certain patents which, in the judgment of the Supreme Court, have been practically declared to be null and void. The reason for this proposal to make them valid is that their becoming invalid was due to the wrong construction of the law by the department and by previous judgments, which wrong construction was in no sense the fault of the patentees. They fulfilled the law as it was read by the department and by the courts until the judgment of the Supreme Court was delivered last December. We therefore propose to render such patents valid.
On section 10, condition of validity of certain patents heretofore granted,


Robert Laird Borden: Is this provision new ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: This is to render valid certain patents the owners of which followed the judgment of the department delivered in the case of Barter vs. Smith in 1877, and it has always been the ruling of the department that patentees were not obliged actually to construct or furnish the invention, but that they should always hold themselves ready to do so. That reading was held to be within the necessities of the law, the department had decided a ease in that sense in 1877, and it had always been acted upon since. Consequently, the department was, so to speak, particeps criminis if on that account a patent became invalid. This section will reinstate those patents which have become technically invalid by reason of this new interpretation of the law.


Robert Laird Borden: Is the order referred to in subsection (b) to be granted upon a hearing ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: This applies to existing patents which have had no opportunity up to the present to come under this licensing clause. We now give them six months to come under the licensing clause, just as in the case of new patents under section 7.


Robert Laird Borden: Are there any words which require judicial determination ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: According to section 7, when the applicant makes application to have his patent put under the licensing clause instead of under the ordinary terms of the Act, the commissioner has to determine whether it is such a patent as ought to come under the licensing clause. After it has been so adjudged by the commissioner, he will issue an order for a license. In this case, under section 10, the same rule of procedure is followed, and existing patents which are allowed six months within which to come under the licensing clause, will have to be dealt with by the commissioner in exactly the same way as new applications for patents to be placed under the licensing clause. Under section 52 of the general Act the commissioner may make, subject to the approval of the Governor General in Council, the rules and regulations necessary for the purposes of this Act.
On section 11,


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: This is to remove a difficulty in connection with section 39 of the general Act. It is contended by some parties that the $4 is not an additional over and above the usual fee for renewing the patent, 'and we want to make it clear that it is.
On section 12,


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: This is to provide that applications for patents shall not be open to public inspection, and thus be exempted from the general provision that all papers connected with patents are opened to public inspection. The whole value of a patent may depend on the application being kept secret.
On section 13,
Notwithstanding anything in the said Act contained, in the case of any application to the oenmdssiiinier made within the time prescribed by the said Act or by this Act, and pending on the 9th day ol April, ,one thousand nine hundred and three, or of any such application thereafter made within such time, for an extension of time to construct or manufacture a patented invention or to import it into Canada, the commissioner may, until the first day of January, one thousand nine hundred and four, grant such extension after the time so prescribed, and any extension so granted shall have the same effect as if granted within the time so prescribed.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: 


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: This requires some explanation. A case came before the department not long ago of an application made for an extension of the time within which to manufacture in the country. It has been usual in the department, where there was no opposition filed, to grant such extensions of time on the mere statement of the applicant. In this case there was an opposition, the case was discussed and the opposing views were represented before the commissioner. Eventually the case was referred to the Department of Justice, and that department gave a written opinion that no extension of time should be granted unless valid arguments were given in the application, and unless it was shown that it was absolutely proper to grant the extension, and the patentee was prevented by circumstances beyond his control from manufacturing within the specified time. This was an entirely new practice, but, with the written opinion of the Department of Justice to that effect, it is understood we must change our practice, and, for the future, only grant extensions of time when such cause is shown. It has been the practice for people to come asking for extension of time within a week or two of the date of expiry of their term. In many cases, where the patentee lives at a distance, it would be physically impossible for him to have his application returned with an explanation of what was required, and come back within the time required for proper consideration. We, therefore, ask that the commissioner be allowed until the 1st of January next to concede such application, even if the concession is granted a little while after the time specifically allowed. We believe that by the 1st of January the new practice in the department will be well known and all such applicants will have an opportunity of making their application well within that period. This is a mere concession in consequence of the change of the practice in the department.


Mr.   CLARICE@: May I ask the hon. minister if he has received any complaint with regard to any of these clauses ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I am informed by my deputy that there lias been none. ' I may say for the information of the hon. member for West Toronto (Mr. Clarke) that this has been fully discussed with the patent solicitors of the country, the Department of Justice, and a number of the patentees who are interested in large patents, and it is quite in accord with their desires. At the same time, we li.lve tried to safeguard the public interest and prevent any unjust discrimination.
On section 14,
In the case of any patent which has heretofore become void or the validity of which might heretofore have been impeached, and which is revived or protected from impeachment by any provision of this Act, any person who has, be-

tween 'the time when such patent became void or when the ground for such impeachment arose, and the time of the passing of this Act, commenced to manufacture, use or sell in Canada the invention covered by such patent, may continue to manufacture, use or sell in as full and ample a measure as If this Act had not been passed.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: This is a saving clause to protect acquired rights. I may say to my hon. friend from West Toronto that my deputy informs me that there was one protest which came in lately against the provisions of this particular clause. This is the only protest of any kind we have had against any provision of the Act. This Act makes valid and legal some patents which have become void. In this clause we seek to provide that any rights which have been acquired during the invalidity of these patents shall be maintained and conserved.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Does this mean acquired rights by reason of patentees' neglect ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Not that ; but patentees have been at fault in complying with the law. By the decision of the Supreme Court in December last it was found that patentees bad not complied with the law and that their patents are null and void. Under this Act we make those patents valid, re-enacting them. During the period when they were invalid certain rights may have been acquired-


Edward Frederick Clarke: By other parties ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Yes. We do not know that they have been, but they may have been. Under this section we protect any such rights.


Mr. CASGRAIN.: May I ask that this Bill be allowed to stand in committee on section 7 until to-morrow or the day after V
Progress reported.


PUBLIC WORKS ACT AMENDMENT.
[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 193) to amend the Public Works Act (the Minister of Public Works) was read, the second time, and House went into committee thereon.
On section 1,
Section 13 of the Public Works Act, chapter 36 of the Revised Statutes, is repealed and the following i>s substituted therefor :-
The minister shall Invite tenders, by public advertisement, for the execution of all works, except in eases of pressing emergency in which delay would be injurious to the public interest, or in cases in which, from the nature of the work, it can be more expeditiously and economically executed by the officers and servants of the department, or in eases where the estimated cost of the work is less than $5,000, and it appears to the minister, in view of the nature of the work, that it Is not advisable to invite tenders.	,
Robert Laird Borden: What change would this effect in the law ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS (Hon. James Sutherland).: After the word 'Department' in the twelfth line, we have added :
Or in cases where the estimated cost of the work is less than $5,000 it appears to the minister, in view of the nature of the work, that it is not advisable to invite tenders.
I have not the Order in Council under which the department has been acting for many years, but I understand from the Deputy minister that it is a copy of the Order in Council which, in some cases, that were referred to by the Auditor General, it was decided was ultra vires, and we have not power under the Act to pass such an order. It would be impossible almost to manage the affairs of the department without such a provision as this. I have adopted the provision, because it was the maimer in which the department had been working for so long. Those words are added to the present clause, and I thought it was better to re-enact the whole clause.


Robert Laird Borden: Then the Order in Council which has been held to be beyond the powers of the Governor in Council contained provisions such as are proposed to be enacted in the remaining words of this section ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Yes.


Robert Laird Borden: What is the object of it ? In the first place, you have power in cases where delays would be dangerous to the public interest. In the second place, you have power where the nature of the work is such that it can he more expeditiously and economically executed; then you are taking power in the third place, where the estimated cost is less than $5,000, and it appears to the minister, in view of the nature of the work, that it is not advisable to invite tenders. What would be the scope of that in actual practice ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The first applies more particularly to cases of injury by floods, or fire, or unforeseen circumstances; the second and particularly third cases, apply almost altogether to cases where the amounts would be small, and in cases where it would be impossible for the officers of the department to prepare specifications.


Matthew Henry Cochrane: Did not the minister have that power where it is under $5,000 1


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Yes.


Matthew Henry Cochrane: And this will cover a case where accidents might happen on a canal ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: That is the intention.


Matthew Henry Cochrane: The old Act covered a case like that, no matter what the ex-

pense was. Where unforeseen accidents happened you had the power to repair them at once ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: My hon. friend is perfectly right. The Act does not provide for this, but it was thought it did, and an Order in Council was based upon it. I do not know why the amount was fixed at $5,000. It is like all other privileges that are given the department, it might be abused. But the intention is to allow the department latitude in dealing with these small matters. The minister will have to be responsible for any abuse of this power. I have talked the matter over with the deputy minister, and no other suggestion was made that would answer the purpose any better.


David Henderson: Suppose a case where a public work would probably cost $20,000, and an appropriation of $5,000 is first asked for by the minister and expended, then next year the work is continued, and a further appropriation is obtained and that has been expended, then another appropriation of $5,000 is obtained, and so on until the work is completed. Now, does the minister consider that under this Bill he would have power to do all this work without asking for public tenders, or, it being a work that w'ould cost the country $20,000, he would not feel under an obligation to call for public tenders ? If the Minister of Public Works could divide up the undertaking and continue it over year after year, there would be no difficulty in expending a very large sum of money without public tenders. I would like to know what the minister's views are on that question ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Speaking for myself, I should say that for a minister to proceed with a work as the hou. gentleman has put it, would be a straight violation of the spirit of the Act. I would not think of facing the House after having acted as he puts the case. The intention is that the minister shall have the power I have explained, and no more. If he undertook a work that would cost a large amount of money, and let it in small pieces year after year, I would look upon that as a subterfuge.


Robert Laird Borden: There does not seem to be any special reason why a wharf or public work costing less than $5,000 should not be performed by public tender, just as it would be performed by tender if it cost $20,000. The criticism I would be inclined to make upon this section is that it is rather too general in its terms. It gives to the minister an absolute discretion as to all sums under $5,000, and yet it seems to me that there is just as much reason for spending some of those sums by public tender as larger sums. Of course, I understand that in case of repairs where you cannot tell how much they will cost before be-


Matthew Henry Cochrane: ginning the work, perhaps it would be well to give the minister even a little more latitude than he has here ; whereas in cases of a new piece of work where no reason exists wThy a tender should not be called for, I think perhaps it would be better in the public interest that he did not have this discretion.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I do not for a minute propose, nor do we now take advantage of this provision of $5,000, to defeat the spirit of the Act by not advertising for tenders. I think during the last month we have had several works under $5,000, and in every case they have been advertised for. I have had cases myself of accidents by storms where the amount required in the long run was over $5,000, and I have come to parliament and explained the conditions. So long as the minister keeps within the intention of the Act and advertises for public tenders for all works, there can be no danger.
Bill reported, read the third time, and passed.


ACT RESPECTING INFECTIOUS OR CONTAGIOUS DISEASES AFFECTING ANIMALS.
[Stage Direction]
The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE (Hon. Sydney Fisher) moved the second reading of Bill (No. 194) respecting infectious or contagious diseases affecting animals.
Charles Eusèbe Casgrain: (Translation.) Mr. Speaker, I must call attention to the fact that this Bill, the second reading of which is now moved, and several others which have been inscribed with the Orders of the Day, have not yet been printed into French. I must call the attention of the government to that fact, although we do not wish to delay the work of the House.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I do not understand the hon. gentleman (Mr. Casgrain) objects to going on with this Bill. Of course, if there is any objection we cannot go on, but perhaps the hon. gentleman would allow us to proceed in committee and then if it is desirable the Bill can stand for further consideration.


Charles Eusèbe Casgrain: I am calling the attention of the hon. minister to the fact that we are reserving our rights.


David Henderson: Does the hon. Minister of Agriculture intend to carry this Bill through its second reading and also the committee stage to-night ? I think we are proceeding too rapidly in regard to a Bill of this kind. I am quite satisfied that there are people in the country who ought to be consulted and only to-day had I the opportunity of sending a copy of the Bill to men who are interested in the breeding of cattle, with a view of getting information in regard to

it. I think an opportunity should be given to allow members to hear from their constituents as to what they think of the Bill. There will be abundance of time even if it lies over for a week. I have no objection to proceeding a certain stage, but ilo not press the Bill to its conclusion to-night so that an opportunity will be afforded for further discussion.


Charles Eusèbe Casgrain: The Bill is not distributed here.


Robert Laird Borden: Yes, I have a copy. .


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I certainly have no disposition to press the Bill to a conclusion. If hon. gentlemen do not object to going into committee and discussing it, we can leave it in committee until such time as they have an opportunity of making inquiries. Perhaps the discussion upon it might elicit points upon which hon. gentlemen can get further information and be in a better position to discuss the Bill at a later stage.	.


Charles Eusèbe Casgrain: Now that the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals (Hon. Mr. Blair) has arrived with those papers, I suppose there is no object in objecting to this Bill going on.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: The cat is out of the bag.


Charles Eusèbe Casgrain: Why do you not go into Committee of Supply ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: We are not ready for it.


Charles Eusèbe Casgrain: We are ready for it.


Andrew B. Ingram: They do not want supply.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House went into committee on the Bill.
On section 2,
The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: In explanation of this section, I may say there are one or two slight amendments. For instance, in subsection (b) the expression ' foreign animals,' means animals not already introduced into Canadian territory outside of quarantine. The intention is that animals in quarantine are to be termed * foreign animals ' until they are released from quarantine. In the original Act they were not termed so.
On section 3,
Every owner of animals and every breeder of or dealer in animals, and every one bringing animals into Canada, shall, on perceiving the appearance of infectious or contagious disease among the animals owned by him or under his special care, give immediate notice to the minister and to the nearest veterinary inspector of the Department of Agriculture, of the facts discovered by him as aforesaid.
2. Any veterinary surgeon practising in Canada shall, immediately on ascertaining that an animal is labouring under an infectious or contagious disease, give similar notice to the minister and to the nearest veterinary inspector.
3. Every person neglecting to give notice as required by this section shall be liable to a penalty not exceeding two hundred dollars.


Mr. McGOWAN.: Does this section affect animals in transit through Canada ?
_ The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE. Yes, if an animal passing through Canada in transit, or at the time of entry, has a contagious or infectious disease, notice must be immediately given to the Minister of Agriculture and the nearest veterinary inspector of the department, of that fact. The old Act required that notice should be given to the Minister of Agriculture, but not to the nearest veterinary inspector.


Mr. CARGILL.: Does it apply to American export cattle going through in bond, and which are shipped by way of Dominion ports ?


John McGowan: There are a great many cattle coming and going through Canada. It seems to me that these cattle should be subject to inspection and if there is any disease that the provisions of the Act should be applied.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: These cattle will be subject to this provision and if disease is found amongst them the owner must immediately notify the Minister of Agriculture and the nearest veterinary inspector. My hon. friend asks whether it would apply to animals in bond. That is a legal question that I would not like to give an opinion upon, but it likely would. Animals in bond are not in bond as far as contagious diseases are concerned.


Henry Cargill: Will the government have an inspector at Toronto for the purpose of examining and reporting upon these cattle, because the parties owning them, if the animals are affected by disease, would not be likely to report ? In that case will some official notify the minister ? The person in charge of these cattle will not be likely to give that notice.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: The railways are obliged to give notice to the department.


Jabel Robinson: Is there an inspector at all ports where American cattle come in ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: We know that this trade only applies to certain ports and at these ports we have inspectors. The customs collectors are bound to call a veterinarian in any case of suspicion, but since the quarantine arrangement was made between us and the United States we have not inspectors at all ports.


Mr. GILMOUR.: Are the cattle which come through in bond and which are fed in Toronto, inspected on the frontier, or only when they come to Toronto, or are they in-



spected at all ? The present system of feeding this cattle at Toronto is a most dangerous one. We have little opportunity to know whether these American animals are free from disease or not. They are fed and watered in the Toronto yards, and then young cattle are taken into the same pens and purchased there and distributed throughout Ontario. It is in my opinion the most dangerous thing in connection with our cattle trade. It is, I should think, impossible to know when diseased American cattle may come upon the scene.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: These United States cattle coming through in bond are all certified at the point of starting by the United States inspectors as being sound for export. They are allowed out in the pens at Toronto just like our own cattle and they are watched by the railway authorities who are obliged to report in case of disease. We must remember that this quarantine arrangement is only in existence so long as the United States is a healthy country, and when disease appeared in the New England states a short time ago we closed our frontier against New England cattle. We would do the same in case there was disease in the Western states. This quarantine arrangement has been in existence for six years and there lias not been a single instance where the disease was traced to these cattle.


James Gilmour: It is a great pity that these American cattle cannot be examined before they cross the frontier. It would be a most unfortunate thing should disease break out in our country, because the result would be that we could not ship our cattle at all, and as we have no dead meat trade our cattle business would be paralyzed. Too much care cannot be taken in this matter. There is no way iu which disease can be so easily introduced as by the existing arrangement.- I trust that the minister will take every precaution.


John McGowan: I wish to emphasize what my hon. friend (Mr. Gilmour) has said in reference to this. It would be most lamentable if disease were introduced into Canada by these cattle passing through iu bond. The farmers of Ontario buy their Stockers on the Toronto market, and if our animals should catch disease in these pens our whole cattle trade would be destroyed. I would like to impress upon the minister that there should be some inspection of these American cattle at the Toronto yards.


Mr. E. D. SMITH.: Does the minister know that all these cattle are inspected at the point of embarkation.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: They have to be certified by the United States authorities.


James Gilmour: But not by the Canadian authorities.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: No, We have a mutual arrangement by which we accept United States inspection and they accept ours; we having the same privileges to send cattle in bond to the United States as they have through Canada. No one would be more willing than I to safeguard our cattle.


James Gilmour: I know that.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I am perfectly satisfied that there is no danger because there is no disease in these states.


James Gilmour: When the minister says there is no disease in these states, it must be remembered that it is hard to tell where these cattle come from to Chicago. They may be from Texas, Mexico or a great many other states. I do not know whether these cattle are disembarked at other places than Toronto or Montreal, but it would seem to me that it would be most desirable that they should be fed and watered at some other point than the Toronto stock yards, even if it cost some expense to the country.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: These cattle could not come from Texas or Mexico


James Gilmour: I suppose that is so, but at all events they come from a very wide territory surrounding Chicago.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Yes. The hon. gentleman mentioned Texas and Mexico, but these are countries which are infected with disease and we do not allow their cattle to come in at all. The United States authorities themselves do not allow cattle to pass from Mexico through New Mexico and Texas north of a line whch runs somewhere near the boundary of Missouri, and which is known as the Texas fever line.


James Gilmour: There is danger all the same. Would the minister think it would be useful to have an isolated yard, for the purpose of treating the cattle as they come through ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I appreciate the suggestion of the hon. gentleman, and shall be glad to. look into the matter and see if any further safeguard can be thrown around that trade. But I would point out that this particular section only emphasizes the point which the hon. gentleman made, that when any animal is known to be diseased, the information with regard to it must be immediately sent to the minister, and to the nearest veterinary inspector.


Andrew B. Ingram: Then, I understand that one government has no check on the other with reference to these contagious diseases of cattle ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: We are constantly communicating, and keeping each other informed. We have no check


James Gilmour: except the honour of a great country, which has pledged itself to do certain things.


Andrew B. Ingram: Does the hon. gentleman not think that the United States has an advantage over Canada in that regard ? It is more to their advantage.


The MINISTER OP AGRICULTURE.: I would not like to say that we cannot depend on the honour of the United States government as well as they can depend on ours. Judging from the experience of the department in the past, I think we can do that.


Rufus Henry Pope: I would like to ask the minister how this Act varies in this particular from previous Acts ?


The MINISTER OP AGRICULTURE.: This section requires the parties to inform the nearest official of the department in addition to the minister, so that prompt action may be taken. That is the difference between this Act and the old one.


David Henderson: What is the meaning of the two words ' every person ' in subsection 3 ? Do they apply only to the owner, the breeder, the dealer and the veterinary surgeon 1 It seems to me to be a very broad expression, one which would include myself as well as the hon. member for East Middlesex (Mr. Gifmour), so that we would be liable to the penalty if we failed to report to the nearest veterinary surgeon. I think the wording of the clause, if read carefully, means that and nothing else.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: No. If the hon. gentleman reads it carefully, he will see that it applies to every person neglecting to give notice as required by this section. It only applies to the people defined by this section.


David Henderson: That may be the meaning of the minister, but the language would not strictly convey that idea. I think it would be unfair to make a private individual liable to a penalty of $200, particularly when he would get no compensation for the trouble he was going to.


The MINISTER OP AGRICULTURE.: The wording of the section does not mean that at all.


Jabel Robinson: Put in the words ' having knowledge of disease,' and I think they would meet the case.


Andrew B. Ingram: That section is certainly altogether too wide. As the hon. minister knows, a good many men who are engaged in veterinary work to-day are not experts, and have no knowledge of what diseases are. Many owners certainly have not that knowledge.


The MINISTER OP AGRICULTURE.: I may say, in the first place, that If a veterinary surgeon does not know the diseases, he certainly ought not to be practicing as such.
133}
But under the clause he is only required to report on ascertaining that the animal is labouring under disease.


Andrew B. Ingram: Suppose I consult a veterinary about some animals, and lie tells me that they are not diseased, and on a later inspection I find that they are ; what then V


The MINISTER OP AGRICULTURE.: In the interest of the public we must insist that owners, on perceiving the appearance of infectious disease amongst their animals, shall notify the department. Of course, if they do not recognize that it is an infectious disease, they would not be liable to the penalty. There is no doubt of that under the wording of the Act.


David Henderson: I am quite in accord with the hon. member for Elgin (Mr. Ingram) in protecting an innocent veterinary surgeon. Take the case of anthrax. I know that it is a very difficult matter for good medical men to determine a case of anthrax in a human being. It is not at all unusual for them to take the blood or some part of the flesh and have it analyzed by such a man ias Professor Ellis, of Toronto, to determine whether it is anthrax or not. It is not easy in many cases to determine whether a disease is infectious or not, and in a case of that kind it is rather hard for a man to be subject to a penalty of $200.
The MINISTER OF [DOT]AGRICULTURE. A penalty of that kind would be only imposed by the court upon a person who was found to be guilty. Such a case as the hon. gentleman mentions would afford a just reason for not imposing the penalty. It is not imposed on the arbitrary will of some autocrat ; it is imposed on evidence of the guilt of the party.


Mr. PRINGLE.: It seems to me that the language of subsection 3 would be more effective if it were made to read, ' every owner of animals and every breeder of or dealer in animals, and every one bringing animals into Canada shall, on becoming aware of infectious or contagious disease,' &c. I think that would make it a little stronger and better.


The MINISTER OP AGRICULTURE.: I might state to the hon. gentleman that the the words he takes exception to are copied verbatim out of the old Act. We took the old Act and changed it as little as possible.
I preferred to abide by the wording of the old Act, which has been in existence seventeen or eighteen years without any difficulty arising.
On section 9,
Every person who, without lawful authority or excuse, digs up or causes or allows to be dug up the buried carcass of au animal which has died or is suspected of having died from infectious or contagious disease, or which has been slaughtered as diseased or as suspected

of disease, shall, for every such offence, incur a penalty not exceeding ono hundred dollars.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Why make the penalty only one hundred under this clause when it is two hundred under the previous clause ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: It is that way in the old Act, and I have no objection to make it two hundred. I move that it be made $200.


David Henderson: This clause should go further. It should be made punishable for a man even to bury the carcass of an animal which has died of an infectious disease. Take the case of anthrax. If you bury an animal which has died of anthrax, you plant the disease in the ground, and animals grazing there will be sure to contract it.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Under our regulations, which have the force of law, animals which have died of anthrax must be burnt.


David Henderson: Many people see the statutes who do not see the regulations.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: The regulations are sent broadcast throughout the country, far more generally than are the statutes. Section 29 of this Act empowers the Governor in Council to make the necessary regulations.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Will a penalty for breaking the regulation be imposed as for breaking the Act.?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Exactly.
Section, as amended, agreed to.
On section 10,


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: This is to prevent the offering of infected animals for sale. The wording of the old Act is changed so as to enable an officer to seize and examine an animal suspected of being infected with contagious disease. Therefore, I move that the words ' Governor in Council,' in thS third line and in the seventh line on page three, be struck out and the word ' minister ' inserted.


Jabel Robinson: Better say * Minister of Agriculture.'


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: That is provided for in the interpretation clause. Wherever the word ' minister ' is used it means the Minister of Agriculture.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: I think it is a little dangerous to pass this section just as it is. I do not know whether the minister has considered how this will work out in the actual enforcement of the Act. Of course we are here to make the law as practical as we can, and to make it easy of enforcement. I would suggest to him that it would be better if we should leave this enforcement to the ' mayor or reeve, or to any justice of the peace having jurisdiction in the Hon. Mr. FISHER.
place,' and not to the officials appointed by the government. The law is apt to be brought into disrepute, if you have an official appointed by the minister called upon not only to give information but to practically try the case he complains about-


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: No.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: It may not say that in so many words, but the minister will see that it comes down to that. It provides that if any animal infected with infectious or contagious disease or suspected of being so is sold or exposed for sale ill the market then ' any clerk or inspector, or other officer of the fair or market or any constable or policeman, or any other person authorized by the mayor or reeve, or by any justice of the peace-it is ' place ' in the Bill, but I suppose it means the justice of the ' peace,' and I would suggest that that be corrected-
' or any person authorized or appointed by the minister '-as it is propose'd to be amended-* may seize the animal and report the seizure to the mayor or reeve or to any justice of the peace having jurisdiction in the place '-I suppose that means the municipality-1 and such mayor, reeve, or justice or person authorized or appointed by the minister, may after examination and verification '-cause the animal to be destroyed. Thus, the person appointed by the minister who thinks that an offence has been committed, is practically the informant-properly so, I am not finding fault with that-but it will not help the enforcement of the law if this same officer is to try the case complained of, which his business calls upon him to lay. That will make the law unpopular, and, if it is unpopular it will lose its effect. If the people are not behind a law that law will not be properly enforced. Therefore, I think the minister will help his own case if he would alter the Bill in this respect. Any person arrested or summoned- or it may not be quite that, hut called upon and made liable for a penalty as well as to have his property destroyed-would have his friends in the neighbourhood, who, would, perhaps say he was not guilty of any offence. I would suggest that this section be amended. Let it stand as it is that any clerk or inspector, or other officer of the fair or market or any constable or policeman, or any other person authorized by the mayor, reeve, or by any justice of the peace having jurisdiction in the place-I suppose that means any person specially appointed to enforce this particular law-or any person authorized or appointed by the minister may seize the animal and report the seizure to the mayor or reeve, or to any justice of the peace having jurisdiction in the place. But when it comes to ' and such mayor, reeve, or justice '-that is all right; but I think when it goes on ' or person authorized or appointed by the minister.' may try the case, that would mean that this officer may

enforce his own information. I think the case should be tried by a third person, some one standing between the inspector or the officer, and the person proceeded against, whether he is appointed by the minister or by the head of the municipality, or whether he is one of the ordinary officials of the place. He is one side of the case, he is the complainaut or prosecutor, and I do not think it will make the law more acceptable to the people to put an officer in the position of enforcing his own opinion. He should lay his information before the mayor, reeve or other magistrate, and let that person try the case before the decision is carried out. Then, in the last three lines of this section it provides * to be forthwith destroyed or otherwise disposed of, in such a manner as he deems proper or ns is directed, as provided by this Act.' I do not think that we ought to delegate to the mayor, reeve or other official who is trying the case the power of deciding what we are better able to judge than he. The two hundred and fourteen members of this House are better able to say how this should be done than is the mayor, reeve or other officer. Let him be simply a judicial officer to carry out this Act, but let us say how it is to be carried out.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Lancaster) does not desire that the officer appointed by the minister should have the power that is given to the reeve, the mayor, or justice of the peace. The mayor, reeve, or justice, as well as the officer appointed by the minister, has the authority to proceed under the first part of the section, and also to judge of the case in tire second part. I do not see any reason why the others should have the power of judging these cases and the inspector appointed by the minister should not have it.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: If the hon. minister will allow me, I do not think he is correct there. I do not understand this to say that the mayor, reeve, justice and so on, may proceed in the first place, but that ' any clerk or inspector, or other officer of the fair or market, or any constable or policeman, or any other person authorized by the mayor or reeve, or by any justice of the peace having jurisdiction in the place,' may proceed. The mayor, reeve, or justice may authorize an officer to proceed, and they may try the cases he brings before them. But the officer appointed by the minister is both complainant and judge.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I would point out that all through this Bill the matter of prompt and immediate action is the necessity that is recognized, as it was under the old Act. The inspector should be in a position to act promptly, and, so to speak, off-hand. If these officers were not able to seize an animal and deal with it at once, they would not be able to prevent the spread of the disease. The hon. gentleman
will notice that it provides that the officers appointed to deal with these cases ' may after an examination and verification,' cause the animal and so on to be destroyed. The officer may not do this until it is clearly proven to be a case of infectious disease; and when that is proven, it is necessary that he should be able to act at once.


James Gilmour: What do the words ' examination and verification ' mean ? Does it mean a scientific examination of the animal or an examination of witnesses in the ease ? I would like to point out to the minister that a man might be a good judge of beef who would not at all be a judge of whether an animal was diseased or not. I think he should act upon the report of one or two veterinary surgeons, and if that report states that the animal is affected, then lie should give an order for its destruction.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: One of the principles underlying this whole Act is that the veterinaries appointed by the government may have power to act promptly on their own discretion. I think that is absolutely necessary. Of course if these officers were to act improperly and were to give a decision which was not justified by facts, then the government would be responsible. The provision whicli is here discussed is one which has been in existence under the old Act. We are not intensifying it in any way, except that we are asking that the minister may appoint these inspectors instead of the Governor in Council.


James Gilmour: Would the minister appoint these justices, or would he allow any other person than justices to act ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: The minister only appoints the inspectors, he does not appoint the justices.


James Gilmour: I know that, but you give that power to justices of the peace to make this examination. Would you allow any justice to make that examination ? Because it would be a dangerous thing to allow any justice to make such an examination as that, and to act on his own discretion.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: The examination contemplated is not made by a justice. This is an examination of a technical character, and has to be made by a veterinary who is properly qualified.


Robert Abercrombie Pringle: I think that clause ought to be made a little clearer. It reads now :
And such mayor, reeve or justice, or person authorized or appointed by the Governor in Council may, after examination and verification, cause the animal

And so on. Now that certainly means that a justice of the peace may, after examination and verification, cause the animal affected to be destroyed. It seems to me that a justice of the peace is not the proper per-

son to cause the destruction of that animal, but he is the proper person to inquire and gather the necessary evidence to see whether that animal should be destroyed. It strikes me it would be much better if that clause were framed in this way :
And such mayor, reeve, or justice of the peace, or person authorized or appointed by the Governor in Council, may, after being satisfied by the evidence of a veterinary that such disease exists, cause the destruction of that animal.
Then the justice of the peace would not act on his own judgment, nor would he act on a simple inspection of the animal, but he would act upon the evidence of a man who was thoroughly competent to decide whether the animal was diseased or not. That clause should be amended so as to make it more effective, and to avoid any possibility of error.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I think the word ' verification ' practically covers that point 1 examination and verification.'


Rufus Henry Pope: This Act is to be interpreted by farmers and people who are not perhaps so accustomed to the interpretation of an Act. I think that ought to be made very clear. It seems to me that the language here leaves that matter a little obscure, it may have been so in the old Act. ' Such mayor, reeve or justice, or person authorized may, after examination and verification.' That may mean the justice of the peace, the mayor or the reeve, all those people.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: All the persons authorized.


Rufus Henry Pope: So you leave the authority in the hands of the reeve rather than of the government.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: To meet the point raised I would suggest the words ' after the veterinary's examination and verification.' I would be willing to have that inserted.


Andrew B. Ingram: Has the hon. gentleman any means of knowing whether the veterin-aries are capable men to perform the examination ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: All veterinaries in this country are obliged to have a diploma from a veterinary college before they are allowed to practice, and only those who have such diplomas are entitled to be recognized as veterinaries. In addition to that, the appointees of the department are chosen as veterinaries of standing. knowledge and experience. We make ourselves no examination at the present time to test the qualities of the veterinaries.


Andrew B. Ingram: The hon. gentleman knows there are some sections where hog cholera may be prevalent, which is a disease Mr. PRINGLE.
of which some veterinaries have very little knowledge. I have in my hand a report of a veterinary whose name, however, I will not mention, in which he says :
Held post mortem examinations on five hogs slaughtered on January 14th, and in examinations could find no indications of bowel trouble, the intestines appearing in each case to be healthy.
That is the report of the veterinary, and in a few days afterwards the whole herd of hogs he mentions were slaughtered. He evidently was not acquainted with hog cholera. I think something should be done whereby veterinaries residing in certain localities where hog cholera is prevalent should be instructed by others who are better posted as to what constitutes hog cholera.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: We have tried to do that as much as possible. We have certain veterinaries who have been detailed to attend to hog cholera in sections of the country alluded to by the hon. gentleman, men who have had a great deal of experience, and they hive been busily employed for some time back in instructing the local veterinaries. Wherever an outbreak of hog cholera is reported to us we send one of these experienced veterinaries. before accepting the judgment of the local veterinaries, unless we know that the latter are well acquainted with the disease.


Jabel Robinson: I think the clause might be simplified by adding these words, ' after verification and examination,'
' or after the magistrate, having been satisfied through evidence that the animal is diseased.' I think that would cover the whole point in a few simple words.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I think the suggestion made already will cover that point. The whole essence of this section and of the Bill is to enable prompt action to be taken to prevent the spread of disease. I would not like to see any machinery created which is going to be slow or dragging in its operation.


Matthew Henry Cochrane: I would like to ask the hon. minister what he means by prompt action 1 Whom does he empower to act promptly in the Bill ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: The veterinary inspectors have power to do certain things.


Matthew Henry Cochrane: They have power to destroy the animal ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Yes.


Matthew Henry Cochrane: Then, why do you name magistrates, or reeves, or anybody else ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Because there may be no authorized veterinary inspector present. The magistrate

would then call in a local veterinary of standing, get his opinion and verification as to the disease and order the destruction of the animal effected.


Mr. COCHKANE.: If a veterinary surgeon was competent to give an opinion would he not be competent to destroy the animal ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Yes, but we do not give power to any veterinary in the country to do that. We only give that power to inspectors appointed by the Governor in Council and to reeves and magistrates.


Matthew Henry Cochrane: Where will the prompt action come in if the veterinary inspector does not happen to be there ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: We cannot always obtain prompt action if there is no veterinary magistrate or reeve in the neighbourhood. I beg to move
That section 10 be amended by striking out the word ' place ' in the second line from the top of the page and inserting the word 'peace'; also that the words 'Governor in Council' in the third line be struck out and the word ' minister ' be inserted in lieu thereof ; also that in line seven the words ' Governor in Council ' be struck out and that the word ' minister ' be inserted in lieu thereof ; also that in the seventh line the 'word ' veterinary ' be inserted between the words ' after ' and * examination.'


Rufus Henry Pope: In regard to the disposition of the animal I would like to ask the hon. minister if it is to be under the regulations and under the care of the veterinary.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: The law directs how it shall be disposed of.


Rufus Henry Pope: The Bill says that the person authorized may cause the disposition of the animal together with hurdles, troughs, litter, &c., in such manner as he deems proper. We would not like this discretion to be left to the ordinary person.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I do not think any ordinary person would undertake to deal with that matter, having before him the Act and regulations directing how this should be done.
Section, as amended, agreed to.
On section 11,
The minister may, from time to time, cause to be slaughtered, animals suffering from infectious or contagious disease or suspected of being so affected, and animals which are or have been in contact with or close proximity to a diseased animal, or an animal suspected of being affected by infectious or contagious disease.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Is that not a pretty broad section ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: It is the same as in the former Act except that it substitutes ' minister ' for ' Governor in Council.' In an action of this kind it is
practically impossible to procure an Order in Council when it is necessary.
On section 12,
1.	The Governor in Council may order a compensation to be paid to the owners of animals slaughtered under the provisions of this Act.
2.	Whenever the animal slaughtered was affected by infectious or contagious disease, the compensation shall be one-third of the value of the animal before it became so affected, but shall not in any such case exceed twenty dollars ; in every other case the compensation shall be three-fourths of the value of the animal, but shall not in the case of grade animals exceed fifty dollars, and in the case of pure-bred animals two-thirds of the value of the animal, not to exceed one hundred, and fifty dollars ; and in all such cases the value of the animal shall be determined by the minister or by some person appointed by him.
3.	Such compensation may be withheld in whole or in part whenever the owner or the person having charge of the animal has, in the opinion of the minister been guilty, in relation to the animal, of an offence against this Act, or whenever the animal, being a foreign one, was, in his judgment, diseased at the time of entering Canada.
4.	If in any case the sum received by the government, on the sale of a carcass of an animal slaughtered, under the provisions of this Act. exceeds the amount paid for compensation to the owner of the animal slaughtered, the excess, after deduction of reasonable expenses, shall be paid to the owner.


Jabel Robinson: Would it not be better, so as to make it correspond with the other, to take out the words ' Governor in Council ' and insert the word ' minister ' ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I think, in the matter of compensation which is a question of general policy, that it ought to be decided by the Governor in Council and not upon the minister's own responsibility.


Rufus Henry Pope: Is this a new section ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: No.
Mr. POPE, I have known instances ' where animals were slaughtered by authority of some one and they were not diseased at all and no compensation was possible. Can it be a fact that this section has been in operation for a series of years ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: If the hon. gentleman will read subsection 3 of this section he will see that it provides that:
Such compensation may be withheld in whole or in part whenever the owner or the person having charge of the animal, has, in the opinion of the minister been guilty, in relation to the animal, of an offence against this Act.
The whole clause is permissive and not compulsory. The question of compensation is a matter entirely within the control of the Governor in Council and is dealt with in regard to each individual case.


Rufus Henry Pope: I must say that my experience is that the Act might as well not have been printed in so far as the farming community is concerned, because no man is going to complain about the presence of disease in his herds if he is not going to be compensated, and these animals will be disposed of in the future as in the past. There is not a day passing in which there are not diseased animals being disposed of on the market through butchers and by the farmers, and the experience of a man in our community, Mr. Bowen, whom the hon. minister will perhaps know, was not such as to encourage farmers to notify the authorities of the presence of disease because Mr. Bowen's cattle were slaughtered and he got no compensation for them. He lost some animals in which disease could not be traced. He appealed for compensation but did not get it. Under these circumstances no one in the community is going to tell if he has any diseased animals. I found fault with this Act many years ago in regard to this particular. I am sorry that the hon. minister has not seen his way clear to making an amendment to the Act by which compensation would be ensured to those who give information in regard to the presence of disease in their herds. We provide a line of $200 for a person concealing the presence of disease in animals, but we should go further and provide that when a man having the health of the herds of the country and of human beings in view, volunteers this information, he should not find himself in the position in which men giving such information have found themselves in the past. Since this question was discussed several years ago in the House, the increase of tuberculous cattle throughout Canada has been very great. It could have been wiped out by the expenditure of $100,000 or $200,000 at the time, but to-day it would take much more money than that, and the longer it is postponed the greater will be the cost. The day will come when parliament will have to deal with this matter. The object of this Bill is to make a man suspicious of an animal, but if it costs him $50 to be suspicious it will be very hard to impress that suspicion on his mind. I would impress upon the minister that his policy on this matter should be changed. He has the assistance of an ex-member of this House whom we see sitting there to-night, and who is perhaps a better authority on this question than I am, but at the same time I submit that the practical working out of this Act will not tend to improve the health of animals in this country. I do not believe that a man should be compensated who Imports animals and can have them properly inspected before he buys them, but the Canadian farmer who offers his animals for slaughter for the benefit of the community is certainly entitled to compensation. In our section of the country the law has not worked well in the past.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: 


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: While I would not like to go as far as the hon. gentleman (Mr. Pope), I fully appreciate the situation he has depicted. The difficulties are great in securing information about the existence of disease in animals. The idea of compensation to those who report disease among their animals has been discussed upon various occasions in this House. Some years ago, when I asked for a vote to deal with tuberculosis, I had to pledge myself that it would not be used for the purpose of compensation. The hon. gentleman stated that some years ago there was less tuberculosis in Canada than now. I think that statement is-too broad. The tuberculin test has been the means of discovering a great many cases where the existence of the disease would not have been suspected prior to the introduction of the test, but on the whole I am well within the mark when I say that Canada is remarkably free from this disease in comparison with other countries. The question of compensation is a difficult one to deal with. No one would like better than I to give compensation to the public spirited man who offered his animals for slaughter. He ought to be compensated, but the difficulty is to distinguish between such a man and others who would demand compensation, and perhaps obtain it where the necessity for slaughter did not exist. Parliament clearly indicated, when the matter was under discussion before, that it would look favourably at the idea of granting compensation. Suppose we spent a large amount of money and stamped out the disease apparently, yet it is of such a nature that the chances are it would reappear constantly, and although w'e would not have such a large expenditure from year to year as at first, still the expenditure would go on indefinitely. In subsequent sections of the Bill I propose to ask for power to make regulations in regard to certain diseases, and which may help to bring about the state of affairs the hon. gentleman (Mr. Pope) refers to.


James Gilmour: If you suspect disease and have animals slaughtered, and if afterwards no disease was found to exist, would the owner be paid in full ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: That would depend on whether the animals would have been In contact with disease or not.


James Gilmour: If they had been in contact, I think you would have the* right to pay the three-fourths of their value, hut if you merely suspect the herd and you order their slaughter, and it was found afterwards that no disease existed. I almost think the owner would be entitled to full compensation.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I would like to have an opportunity of looking into that matter.


James Gilmour: I do not suggest tliat the minister should come to any hurried decision on the question. I would advocate killing middling freely when animals are suspected, but if you find you are in error, I think the owner should be fully compensated.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: On one or two occasions we have paid compensation when an error was committed by one of our officers.


James Gilmour: That is what I say you should do.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I think provision should be made for that under the law. I think there is provision in some part of the law, but if not I will see that provision is made.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: With regard to subclause 3, does not the minister think that it would be better to have the matter therein referred to tried in some other way than to leave it to the opinion of the minister ? If a man has been guilty of neglect, it is usually enough to prove it in the locality in which he lives, before some justice of the peace. The minister could not very well determine that down here at Ottawa. He is not going to the place where the man lives, and it will be equally difficult for the man to come to Ottawa.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I do not think the minister could form an opinion on the matter without looking into it very carefully and having the whole evidence before him. Of course, any action of that kind by the minister would be pretty sure to be brought before the House by some one on behalf of the individual if he were discriminated against or hurt. The machinery might be a little awkward in certain cases, but I think it would be safe enough to leave it as it is. It has been in the old Act exactly in this shape.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Although the Governor in Council is to determine the compensation, the minister can withhold the payment of the compensation by deciding that it is not a proper case.


Mr. BRODER.: The minister would depend on the report of his own officials who investigated the matter.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Not necessarily. The minister would probably have representations from the individual, and he would have to balance these against the report of his officials. The minister does not depend on his officials in every instance.


Andrew Broder: But the person you would call criminal in the matter would be the person attempting to hide the prevalence of disease among his herd. My experience in localities where these things occur is that, without the incentive of compensation, it
is impossible to bring the individual to notify the department of the existence of disease ; the experience is all the other way. The tendency is to hide the fact. There have been cases where the herds have been slaughtered, and after the slaughter it has been found that the disease was not so great as the official has supposed it was. My idea is that it would be better to give a more liberal remuneration, and stamp the disease out as far as possible : it seems to me that is the cheaper way of dealing with the matter. Whether or not the different conditions under which animals are now kept, from the old hardy way, have anything to do with the greater prevalence of disease, I do not know. I think a great many cattle are put into close stables, and too many are put together, which is, no doubt, a cause of disease. You are never going to stamp out the disease unless you let the owner of the cattle understand that it is his interest as well as the community's interest to expose the fact. Take the case of a poor man whose all is represented by the few cows he milks on his farm. That man will hide the fact of disease as long as possible, because if he does not his all will be gone. It would be better for the government to pay him 75 per cent if the animals proved diseased, and 100 per cent if they proved to be not diseased. I do not think you can reach the difficulty in any other way.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I think perhaps the hon. gentleman is labouring under a little misconception. We do not order the slaughter of animals in cases of tuberculosis, which the hon. gentleman evidently has in his mind. At the request of interested individuals, animals supposed to be affected with tuberculosis are inspected, and when found to be diseased, they are subject to the quarantine law, which prevents them being sold or moved about; but no inspector has ever demanded that such animals should be slaughtered.


Andrew Broder: But the regulations amount to that. They have to be isolated. The owner cannot take them out of the premises. His only remedy is to kill them. Then he will have an officer of the government along, who will investigate the meat and see that it is not put on the market if it is diseased. It would be better to order the animals to be slaughtered. You would get at the difficulty sooner than you do now.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: The health officers are required to deal with these animals in the interest of the public health. All we try to do is to find out what will benefit the public at large, whether the animal is diseased or not. Then the law steps in and says that if the animal is diseased, it must be treated in such and such a way. That is done in the interest of the public health and for the protec-

tion of the community. I do not think we can relax that law in any way.


Andrew Broder: No, but if you take the right to slaughter and remunerate, you will obviate all the other difficulties.


Henry Cargill: I think the hon. member who has just taken his seat has made a very valuable suggestion. There is no doubt such a tendency as he points out on the part of the people who own cattle which are subject to inspection by a government official, to ascertain whether or not they are diseased if the owner of the cattle were to receive good compensation for the animal slaughtered, he would have no object in concealing the disease or in preventing the official from making a thorough investigation. I think that the suggestion is a very valuable one. If people owning cattle were led to believe that they would be paid in full the value of the slaughtered animals, they would court inspection rather than refuse it, and I believe that would be a very effective way of stamping out the disease. While the government may be very vigilant and have the interests of the farmers at heart, still the farmers do not like to suffer loss, and if they realized that they were going to be fully compensated for the cattle slaughtered, they would court inspection and would be willing to give the government official free access to their herds.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I am afraid that if we were to pay the full value of every animal slaughtered, a farmer who might happen to have surplus stock might be tempted to try and get the value for his surplus animals in this way, and it would be a very dangerous policy to institute. The most that could be expected would be that a certain portion of the value might be paid. If an animal is diseased, the loss is bound to fall on the farmer, and if he be wise he will get rid of the animal. But of course there are some men who will run every risk rather than resort to slaughtering any portion of the herd. It seems to me that to pay the full value would be impracticable. I appreciate what the hon. member for Compton (Mr. Pope) has said, and can realize that so long as we do not pay some compensation, there will be a great deal of difficulty in working out the Act without paying any compensation and the public educated up to the opinion that it is in their own interests not to evade the Act. If we are to inaugurate a system of general slaughter and compensation, I am afraid that we would have to face a very large expenditure, probably from $200,000 to $500,000 per year for several years.


Matthew Henry Cochrane: How can that be when the hon. gentleman told us this session that there was no disease in Canada ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: My hon. friend is mistaken. I never said that there was no disease in Canada. There Hon. Mr. FISHER.
is, on the contrary, a considerable amount of tuberculosis in the country. It is a contagious disease which affects animals and men, and I would not venture to say what value would have to be paid if all the animals affected by tuberculosis were to be slaughtered in a few years.


Matthew Henry Cochrane: How could a farmer who has a surplus stock impose upon the government when his herd is inspected by a proper official ? He could not get any of this stock slaughtered without first having the animals inspected by the government veterinary surgeon.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: We would have to add largely to the number of our officials, and my experience indicates that we would have to watch with the utmost vigilance. Even now, in the case of hog cholera, when compensation is paid for the hog slaughtered, we have a great deal of difficulty indeed in order to a void being imposed upon, and the difficulty would be much more serious with regard to cattle at large.


David Henderson: The hon. gentleman can hardly be serious when he makes the charge against the farmers, that when they have surplus stock to dispose of they would take advantage of the law simply for the purpose of making a sale. That is not my estimate of the farmers of Canada. I think that they are a more honourable class of people, and the hon. minister himself, who is a practical farmer, is hardly fair to the farmers of this country when he makes such a wholesale charge.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I hope that my hon. friend will not misquote me. I did not make any wholesale charge, but he must admit that there are among farmers, as in every other section of the country, men who would take advantage of the government if they could.


Robert Laird Borden: The hon. minister has not answered the point made by my friend from Northumberland (Mr. Cochrane) that the animals slaughtered would not be paid for unless an official of the government had ordered their slaughter. You do not pay for the animal unless you order it to be slaughtered. Then the only ground advanced by the hon. minister for not paying full compensation, is that the farmers are so absolutely unreliable that they would endeavour in the absence of a better market, to work off their surplus stock in this way.


Jabel Robinson: Is the hon. minister aware that there is a good deal of tuberculosis in the country ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: It is well known to exist, not only in this but in other countries.
Mr. R03INSON. But the hon. gentleman said in this country ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Yes.


Jabel Robinson: Do the British people know this ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Yes.


Jabel Robinson: No wonder they keep up the embargo on our cattle.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: There is ten times as much tuberculosis over there as here. It has nothing to do with the embargo. The embargo is on account of pleuro-pneumonia.


Rufus Henry Pope: The hon. gentleman will find a report in his department by Dr. McEach-ren, a few years ago, in which he gave the cost of stamping out tuberculosis in this country.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I think he said $200,000 per year for several years.


Rufus Henry Pope: For a very few years ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: For several years.


Rufus Henry Pope: If it could be accomplished with $200,000 a year for three or four years, it would be money well spent, indeed. I would say again-not that I wish to make a political or a stump speech-that I think the farming community are entitled to an expenditure, even if it reaches a million dollars in a term of years, as much as other portions of the community are entitled to the expenditures we make to assist them in the ways of trade and commerce. In the amount of taxation he bears and in his importance in relation to all other lines of trade, the farmer is the great element of strength in this country, and I believe that the rest of the community would not hesitate to bear their share of any taxation that might be necessary to bring about an improvement so desirable as the stamping out of this contagious disease. As the Minister of Agriculture suggested, this disease is a very stealthy one ; it creeps into a herd of cattle without arousing suspicion, it hangs about the herd for many years without the knowledge of the owner, until a weaker generation of animals come, and then suddenly he finds his whole herd infected with the disease. I would favour compensation for the killing of the animals, for the government has no right to ask that animals be killed, or isolated so that their owners have no use for them, without compensation. A plan should be properly prepared under the direction of medical skill and technical experience, and the House should be asked to vote such money as is necessary in the premises. As this is a government of commissions, it might not be out of place to suggest that we might have a commission with regard to this matter, and then two or three more friends of the government could be given employment for some time. And a
scheme might be formed by which as good results could be obtained as from some other commissions that have been appointed and have caused expenditures certainly not directly beneficial to the farming community. It would also be quite in keeping with matters as we sometimes find them, if a lawyer could be engaged to preside over this commission to look after the interests of the farmers. But joking aside, I think that the importance of the cattle trade in the east and in the west of the Dominion and the importance of the dairy trade, is sufficient to warrant the expenditure, whether it is one hundred thousand, two hundred thousand or three hundred thousand dollars a year, and whether that expenditure is for one year or for the next twenty years.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I shall be happy to consider the hon. gentleman's (Mr. Pope) suggestion of a commission.


Mr. SHERRITT.: I cannot agree with the hon. member for Compton (Mr. Pope) or with the hon. minister that tuberculosis is prevalent in this country.


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


John Sherritt: I think, perhaps, more of the thoroughbred cattle are affected than of the ordinary cattle, but I do not think that there is any justification for such wild charges.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Sherritt) is misquoting me. I did not say that tuberculosis is prevalent in this country, on the contrary I said that the herds in Canada were less affected than those of almost any other country. At the same time I said-and it is true-that there is a good deal of tuberculosis among the cattle in Canada.


Ernest D'Israeli Smith: I agree with the hon. member for Compton (Mr. Pope) that it is desirable to spend even a large sum to stamp out all serious disease affecting our cattle. That is the object of this Bill, but it would appear that the Bill does not go far enough. It is evident from the admission of the minister that there are a great many people who have disease in their herds who do not complain. But the benefit will be small if only a small portion of the diseased cattle are slaughtered, the cattle of farmers who are generous enough to be willing to have them slaughtered and receive only 75 per cent of the value of them if they are not affected, and one-third of the value if they are affected. It is evident to me that if we wish to stamp out the disease, we must take such steps as will ensure the slaughter of ail animals that are affected. And I believe, as has already been said, that, unless the farmer is to get the full value of his cattle, there are many cases in which the farmer will not complain. Why not, then, spend a sufficient sum of money to clear the country absolutely of this disease ? The


Andrew Broder: I think that the minister and the House as well, has not allowed for the effect that a clean bill of health for our cattle would have upon the market for our butter and cheese. If it were known that the herds in Canada were clean and free from disease, there Is not the slightest doubt that our products would be more highly appreciated than they can be under any other condition. I think this is something that it is worth while for the country to consider.


Matthew Henry Cochrane: I take strong exception to the Minister of Agriculture telling us that he is afraid that the farmers would impose upon the government of their country by selling their surplus stock under pretense that the cattle were affected with contagious disease. When the minister thinks that over, I believe he will see that he made a statement that he should not have made. As a farmer, I object to a minister of the Crown telling the public that farmers are so mean and low that if they had a few surplus head of cattle they would take advantage of the minister and the government by disposing of them as diseased. Now, why will the minister say that, when he knows deep down in his heart that the cattle cannot be slaughtered without a certificate from the veterinary surgeon ? How could any farmer impose upon the department with diseased cattle in the mean contemptible way he mentions, when he has officials all around the country to inspect the cattle ? I am Mr. SMITH (Wentworth).
here to repudiate any such thing. That may be the prevalent idea with the farmers the Minister of Agriculture associates with, but I can tell him that is not the character of the farmers of Ontario. If it was their disposition, he has it in his power to prevent them dealing with the government in that way. He talks about a few thousand dollars. Who is paying most of the taxation of this country ? Is it not the farming community ? Are not the exports produced by the farming community worth more to this country than any other manufacturing industry in Canada ? And if so, why should a few hundred thousand dollars be parsimoniously dealt out to defend the herds and stock that are bringing more money into this country than any other industry ? You will fritter away two or three hundred thousand dollars in a harbour where there is no harbour, and never will be, and $75,000 to dredge a channel and build a wharf where the post office is not worth $100 a year. That is all right; but when you come to make a clean bill of health for the greatest industry in Canada, you talk about a little expense, and you are afraid the farmers are going to be mean enough to take advantage of the government.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: The question of money is not the only one involved here. I presume that hon. gentlemen have followed what is done in other countries in fighting cattle disease, and if so, they must be aware that everything cannot be done by money. If the reputation of our dairy products is high in England, it is not because we have no tuberculosis in this country, but because of the high quality of our product. My hon. friend from Wentworth (Mr. Smith) has alluded to the experience in some counties in Ontario, to something that was attempted and it failed.


Ernest D'Israeli Smith: Because they did not pay enough.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Perhaps not; that shows that great difficulty arose in such an undertaking. I think one reason of not paying enough was the opposition of the farmers having their herds compulsorily destroyed. It is not because I am unwilling to pay a sufficient amount, because I think if we could stamp out tuberculosis entirely in this country, a very considerable expenditure would be justified. But we must be able to show parliament that such an expenditure would be successful. My experience leads me to the conclusion that we might go on spending money year after year without really accomplishing the destruction of the disease.


John Sherritt: Do I understand the hon. gentleman to say that there is less tuberculosis in this country than in England and the United States ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Yes.


John Sherritt: Then does not the hon. gentleman think it would be well to enter into some different arrangement with the United States, which would prevent their cattle coming in here and feeding in our yards where our own cattle are put afterwards before putting them back on to the farm ? Does not the hon. gentleman think there is something wrong in the present state of affairs when cattle are allowed to be shipped in here from a country where cattle are not as healthy as otir cattle, shipped into our yards, fed in our yards, and our cattle afterwards fed in the same yards ? It seems to me the hon. gentleman has shown a weak point in his argument when he accused the farmers of this country of trying to outwit the officials of the government. It seems to me that the officials of the government ought to be more attentive to their duties, and they should not give certificates at all where there is at least disease.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: We do not allow cattle to come in from the United States except for breeding purposes, and they are always tested for tuberculosis. If they are found to be diseased they are not allowed to come in. We do not import Stockers and feeding cattle from the United States except to a certain extent into the North-west Territories.


James Gilmour: What care is taken with regard to cattle coming over from the other side to graze, and then taken back again ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: They are all inspected.


Adam Carr Bell: I would like to know if the minister has found the farmers inclined to take advantage of these Acts, and to dispose of animals that are diseased and to get some money return for them ? I do not think, as a rule, he would say that the farmers are apt to take such advantage. There has been a good deal of cattle disease in the county of Pictou, and the hon. gentleman has had something to do with controlling that so-called Pictou cattle disease, and compensating the farmers for animals killed. I do not think he is disposed to argue that generally speaking farmers are dishonest in the matter.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Certainly not. I never undertook to say that.


Adam Carr Bell: That construction has been derived from the language of the hon. gentleman.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Very improperly.


Adam Carr Bell: I think that a comparatively large amount of money might be expended in stamping out the disease altogether. It will
be cheaper in the end to do that when you take into account the great benefit that will result from a knowledge of the fact that our herds and flocks are entirely free from disease. In the case of the Pictou cattle disease it has been under the care of the government for something like twenty years. I really believe that the government would have saved a great deal of money in connection with this disease, which is still in existence and for which the hon. gentleman is called upon to make payments every year and which has now spread to a distance of nearly sixty or seventy tuples from its original starting point, by adopting the British system used in the case of the Rhinder-pest outbreak and really stamping out the disease by destroying every animal that was either diseased or had come in contact with a diseased animal paying a fair compensation to the farmers for the animals so destroyed. The expenditure already made upon that subject in Nova Scotia I think must be in excess of what it would have cost if every diseased animal, or every animal in contact with diseased animals, had been destroyed and even if the buildings in which they had been housed had been destroyed. I believe the government has paid more than it would have expended if it had destroyed all the animals that have come in contact with diseased animals and replaced the buildings. While you leave the seeds of disease there in animals that are passing back and forward from one farm to another and pasturing together, there is a constant development and growth of the disease it must involve a continual expense. Really, I would imagine it might be in the case of tuberculosis perhaps better to pay the full value if by that means we would be free of the disease, but, I understand, that in reference to tuberculosis the hon. minister would not be prepared to recommend the destruction of the animals effected.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: We have never ordered destruction.


Adam Carr Bell: I would rather infer from the experiments conducted on the farm of Senator Edwards that it has been determined that by instructing the farmers sufficiently as to the methods of raising calves from diseased animals these animals continue to possess a certain value in the agricultural sense and that it would be a piece of foolishness to destroy them. But, that being the fact, it seems to me that there should be some system by which farmers would be very carefully instructed as to the means of raising healthy calves from diseased cows and sires, and that certain precautions would be taken to see that milk products from infected animals are not used in such a way as to affect the health of the population of the country. In respect to that I understand that there are experiments making now to determine whether or not the disease is actually communicable from ani-

mals to human beings. I believe there are some parties who do not admit that there is much danger of infection in that way. As long as there is no really demonstrated great danger and as long as there is no question at all as a result of the experiments made under the direction of the hon. minister that diseased animals are quite capable of rearing healthy progeny, I think the hon. gentleman would not be justified in advising the country to go to the heavy expenditure necessary to stamp out tuberculosis. But I think in the case of the so-called Pictou cattle disease, pleuro pneumonia and Rhinderpest, or any other disease that is infectious, the minister would no doubt be warranted in recommending that the animals affected should be slaughtered and that these diseases should be stamped out. I am very glad to hear that the hon. minister has not got an unfavourable opinion of my constituents in connection with the expenditure he has made in so far as the so-called Pictou cattle disease is concerned.


Andrew B. Ingram: The lion. Minister of Agriculture made a statement to-night that is rather a strange statement for him to make in respect to tuberculosis. I would like to know from the hon. minister if this disease has increased or decreased.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I would not like to say definitely whether it has increased or decreased. My impression is that it is constantly decreasing, because the knowledge of the treatment of the disease is becoming much more widespread amongst the farmers and I know they are dealing with the disease to-day in a way they never thought of doing a few years ago.


Andrew B. Ingram: Tuberculosis being a contagious disease, the hon. gentleman has stated that there is a large amount of the disease in Canada, though it is not so prevalent as in the United States or other countries. That being true a statement of that character coming from the hon. minster, I should think would have a tendency to injure our Canadian cattle trade. For the purpose of getting the hon. minister to explain, I will read the statement he made in this House last year in respect to the embargo on Canadian cattle.
I have no hesitation in endorsing that statement-
Referring to the motion made by the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Bourassa).
The evidence was so completely submitted to the Minister of Agriculture in England, the Hon. Mr. Hanbury, that he first, privately, to myself, when I was interviewing him, acknowledged that there was no disease amongst our animals in Canada against which the provisions of this Act ought to be enforced. When I suggested to him that it would be well to make that statement publicly he shortly afterwards, Mr. BELL.
in an interview, which the hon. member for East Grey (Mr. Sproule) has just been alluding to, made that statement publicly, saying in answer to the assembly of the associations in Edinburgh that he believed to-day that in Canada there was no contagious disease such as they feared the introduction of into England. We therefore say that the evidence has been supplied to Great Britain to show that there is no justification for the application of this Act as against Canadian cattle.
Again be said :
I believe that everybody in Canada who has given the slightest attention to this question of the embargo on our cattle is fully convinced, in the first place, that no disease exists in this country, and, in the second place, that it was not necessary for the protection of the herds in Great Britain. I feel that the parliament and government of Canada can approach the imperial authorities on this question with the greatest force and strength.
Tuberculosis is a contagious disease because tlie interpretation clause says so. We are exporting our cattle to Great Britain. Would it not injure our Canadian cattle trade if it goes abroad that there is a great deal of this contagious disease in Canada, and in view of the statement made by the hon. minister to-night would it not effect the cattle trade in Canada ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: What the hon. gentleman (Mr. Ingram) has quoted is absolutely and entirely correct. The question of the embargo in England is a question as to an embargo on Canada against the introduction of foot and mouth disease and pleuro pneumonia only.


Andrew B. Ingram: 
Robert Laird Borden: The minister has overlooked the fact that the English Act under which this so-called embargo is levied on our cattle is in general terms. It refers to contagious diseases generally and not to pleuro-pneumonia particularly.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I cannot say positively, but every one knows it was enacted in connection with pleuropneumonia and foot and mouth diseases. There is mange in this country, in the United States and in England, and it is a contagious disease, but the Act does not refer to that.


Rufus Henry Pope: There is nothing to prevent the English Act being enlarged at any time if the English government see tit to do so. They claim they have discovered pleuropneumonia in some of our cattle and consequently they simply apply the Act.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: They claimed that years ago, but not now.


Rufus Henry Pope: They can embargo our cattle for anything else as well as pleuro-pneu-monia under the Act.


Matthew Henry Cochrane: We are allowing United States cattle in bond to be watered and fed in the Toronto stock yards, where our own cattle are brought in after the American cattle leave, and we make no provision for fumigating the stock yards but simply depend in blind faith on the certificate of a gentleman in the United States. It appears to me that there is great danger of disease being introduced in that way. We are making provision in this clause for the destruction of bedding and so on, but we are allowing the condition of affairs in Toronto to go without taking any precaution. It appears to me that it would be a very judicious expenditure to have separate and distinct sheds for American cattle, so that we may not run the risk of the untold damage that may be done if they communicate disease to our animals.


Rufus Henry Pope: We do not permit cattle to enter Canada for the purpose of remaining here without submitting them to the tuberculin test, and therefore we ourselves consider the matter a very serious one, so therefore we ourselves consider the matter a very serious one so that we cannot blame the English people for thinking likewise.
I again put myself on record as saying that the expenditure of $200,000 to $300,000 a year if necessary for a term of years, would be a wise expenditure if it resulted in making the health of Canadian cattle better than it is to-day. So far as I am concerned, I am prepared to assume the responsibility of voting for such an expenditure if it were made under proper regulations as no doubt it would be.


Henry Cargill: I am quite sure that it is the desire of the minister to do what lie can in the direction of stamping out tuberculosis and all other contagious diseases of cattle. I think from what lias been said on this side of the House that it would be worthy of the minister's consideration as to whether it would not be advisable to offer more compensation to the owners of diseased cattle that have been slaughtered. I
always commend the economical administration of affairs by the government as well as by business men, but at the same time I believe that the only way the minister can succeed is by allowing a fair value for all animals which it is necessary to destroy. I am in hearty accord Avith members on this side of the House who ha\-e spoken on this subject, and they all seem to be of the opinion that it would be money well spent if we made a thorough investigation of the herds throughout the length and breadth of Canada and slaughtered diseased animals lvhere we found them. All owners of cattle Avould assist the minister and his department in trying to eradicate the disease if they got fair compensation for the animals which it was found necessary to destroy. Some members on this side of the House have stated that the agricultural industry is the most important in this country, and I think, Sir, that the agricultural community are entitled to a liberal expenditure for the purpose of stamping out this disease. 1 do not agree with the member for Wellington (Mr. McGowan) avIio stated that tuberculosis was much more prevalent among the higher grade of cattle than among the ordinary herds. I know in my section ef the country where men have pure bred cattle, they have ample provision for stabling them, for ventilating the stables, for taking care of the animals, and they do not allow them to be exposed to severe weather as ordinary herds of cattle are. I believe that today tuberculosis exists to a greater extent among the ordinary herds of cattle in the country than it does among the purer-bred cattle. In conclusion, I advise the minister, Avho I know is very desirous of doing all he can to lessen the prevalence of this disease, to consider the matter fully, and bring down some measure to aid the cattle growers of this country in every way possible to stamp out this disease. I am quite sure they would do all they could in that direction, if they were sure of getting a fair and reasonable compensation.
Section allowed *to stand,
On section 14,-Governor in Council may prohibit importation of animals and certain articles,


David Henderson: I would like to ask the minister if there is any Order in Council in existence at the present time prohibiting the importation of animals, or of flesh, hides, hoofs, horns, or other parts of the animal, or of hay, straw, fodder, &c.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Yes, an Order in Council was passed prohibiting the importation of animals from the neighbouring states in which foot and mouth disease was found to exist, and prohibiting the entry of hides, horns, hoofs, and so on, which were affected.


David Henderson: Does the minister exercise a supervision over the importation

of hides, not the product of the United States, but coming from a foreign country, say a South American country, through the United States ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Those hides are allowed in, coming through in bond.
On section 16,


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: This gives the minister power to appoint officers on the spur of the moment, when he thinks it necessary. Under the old Act the Governor in Council had power to appoint, but very often could not appoint until long after the necessity ceased.
On section 17,


David Henderson: Are the inspectors appointed under this clause and the preceding clause paid an annual salary, or only for their services when called upon ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: That depends on the nature of their engagement. Some inspectors are appointed all the year round on annual salaries ; but this is for the purpose of appointing temporary inspectors for temporary work that arises from time to time, and they are only paid for the work they do.
On section 19-report to Minister of Agriculture.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: This does not seem to provide for the minister having any other information than what the inspector sends. What evidence would the minister have to show him whether the inspector's report was right or not ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: The declarations sent in by the inspectors sometimes have to be supplemented by bacteriological investigation ; and if under such circumstances it is found that the disease was not what the inspector thought it was, then the minister would declare that the place was not an affected place. Other cases of that kind might arise.


Robert Laird Borden: Is that not a little awkward where you are dealing with portions of the country which are at a very great distance ? For example, suppose you were dealing with a supposedly infected place in a remote portion of British Columbia. It might take a week to communicate with the minister, and the event might show that without any justification it had been regarded as an infected place.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: It would have to be so under the declaration of the local inspector until that was overriden by the report of the inspector-general or the minister. I was pointing out a few minutes ago that sometimes the disease appears to exist, but when the specimens are sent to the laboratory for bacteriological investigation, it is found that Mr. HENDERSON.
the animal is not infected and the minister would reverse the decision of the local inspector.
On section 21,
The area of an infected place may, in all cases of a declaration by the minister, include any common, field, stable, cowshed, or other premises in which infection or contagious disease has been found to exist, and such an area as to the minister seems requisite ; and the minister may, from time to time, by order, extend or curtail the limits of an infected place beyond the boundaries of the common, field, stable, cowshed, farm or premises where infectious or contagious disease is declared or found to exist.
Mr. LANCASTER, Is there to be no chance whatever giveu to the man who is interested on the other side of the question to be heard ? It seems to me that when we give power to enforce an embargo against a man and practically put him out of the cattle-raising business for the season, without giving any or very little compensation, there should be some opportunity given him to present his view of the case.


James Gilmour: It is possible that a veterinary might declare a contagious disease, as for instance, cholera, to be in a certain district for the purpose of getting the fees.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: The inspector is paid a salary and not by fees.


James Gilmour: Still it may be in his interest that a district should be declared to be infected. I have an instance in my mind.


Robert Laird Borden: They are not permanent salaried officers ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: No.


Robert Laird Borden: That lets in the danger to which my hon. friend referred.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: If we believed that these men were deliberately creating business for themselves, we would have to take steps to remedy that But I do not think that is at all likely, and in any case it is necessary for health purposes that prompt action should be taken. We could not wait for the ordinary procedure of law, and the inspector must take responsibility. If we found him doing anything of the kind without justification, we would soon remove him. At present we are having this work done much more by officers paid by the year and have slightly enlarged our permanent staff, so as to be able to employ permanent instead of temporary officers.
On section 24,


Edward Arthur Lancaster: This provides that an order of the minister relative to an infected

place shall supersede any order of a local authority inconsistent with it. Is not that a little dangerous ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: It has been the rule ever since the Act has been in existence.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: I do not think it has ever been tested in the courts. It is a serious thing to put it so strongly as that, without any qualifications, because the question of the power of two parliaments might very easily arise.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 27,
Every company and every person carrying for hire animals to or in Canada, shall thoroughly cleanse and disinfect, in such manner as the Governor in Council, from time to time, directs, all steamships, steamers, vessels, boats, pens.' carriages, trucks, horse-boxes and vehicles used by such company or person for the carrying of animals ; and the Governor in Council may cause any such steamship, steamer, vessel, boat, carriage, truck, horse-box or vehicle, to be detained at such place as to him seems meet, until it is so cleansed and disinfected.
Rufus Henry Pope: Has there been any Order in Council passed in connection with this ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Yes.


Rufus Henry Pope: Does the hon. gentleman remember the district ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I do not. It is one of the general regulations which require that, any time it is ordered, all railway carriages, trucks and cars for the carrying of stock must be cleansed.


Rufus Henry Pope: Must cars passing from the United States through Canada into the United States again be cleansed before they return to Canada ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Yes.


Rufus Henry Pope: Is the system of keeping track of these cars such that the department knows that they have been thoroughly cleansed ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: We have a general order with regard to all cars coming in from the United States. Under ordinary circumstances, there is merely a general inspector to keep track of them. The railway companies are responsible for it, and they are liable to be called to account at any time if they do not comply with the rules. The reports are that they do it very carefully and effectively. When the New England States were scheduled as having foot and mouth disease. we put special officers on and watched so that there should be no danger of cars coming in without being disinfected.


Rufus Henry Pope: And how is it with regard to cars coming in from Chicago eastward ? Is the same trouble taken ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Yes.


Rufus Henry Pope: It would not be possible for cars to go from the New England states to Chicago and then into Canada without being cleansed ?	[DOT]


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: The American authorities do not allow the cars to cross into other states from the New England states without being disinfected. They are watching that carefully.


Rufus Henry Pope: Still, the hon. minister is trusting to their doing it, and is not making any regulation affecting the cars from Chicago ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: We have not made any special regulation on that point.


Rufus Henry Pope: In the case of Texas cattle ' going into Alberta. I saw a number of Texas cattle being unloaded there-any one having seen Texas cattie once would have no difficulty in recognizing them again-


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Are they not Mexican ?


Rufus Henry Pope: I would not say they are not, as the two are very much alike.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I think they must be Mexicans. There is a law in the United States appointing a line north of which cattle from the south are not allowed to come. Subject to the hon gentleman's (Mr. Pope) knowledge on that subject, which I would not dispute_


Rufus Henry Pope: Does the hon. minister know how far north that line is ? Is it north of the Indian Territory, the pan handle of Texas ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: It is south of the Indian Territory, I think.
I think the pan handle of Texas is not included.


Rufus Henry Pope: Are not cattle coming from Southern Texas to the markets shipped_?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: h>one, by the regulations of the United States. Or, rather, I am informed that I should correct that as to time. There is a certain season of the year when the Texas cattle disease is not dangerous.


Rufus Henry Pope: When I was acquainted with that section of the country, certain territory was marked out in which the cattie were permitted to be driven from southern Texas through the pan handle and shipped from Dodge city to Kansas city, Chicago and other places. I know that, later in the season^ they are allowed to go anywhere. But during the period of the year when the Texas fever was infectious, the restriction: was imposed. The hon. minister says, as I understand him, that the regulation allow-

ing them to pass through has been done away with.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: That route cannot now be used.


Rufus Henry Pope: The hon. minister thinks there is no danger of the importation of cattle disease into Alberta from that district ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I believe there is none.


Mr POPE.: Have we regulations prohibiting Texas cattle from coming into Canada ?
The MINISTER OB' AGRICULTURE. We do permit them, with certain certificates from the United States bureau of animal industry, which corresponds to our veterinary bureau-certificates of health aud of individual inspection of the animals- to come into our North-west.


Rufus Henry Pope: Could the hon. gentleman say whether these cattle are allowed to come from Texas to other parts of the United States under similar conditions ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I could not tell.


Rufus Henry Pope: There is danger in dealing with these cattle, and we cannot be too careful.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: We are trying to guard against danger and are watching the matter closely. I think we have been successful in keeping out disease.


James Gilmour: Will the minister please say which of these sections, from section 17 to section 28 are new ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Section 26 is new, and section 28 also.
On section 28,
All vards, stables, sheds or other premises used by railway or steamship companies or other persons for the accommodation of animals shall be maintained in a clean, comfortable and sanitary condition, and shall be subject at all times to inspection by inspectors acting under the authority of the minister, who, when they deem such action necessary, may order the cleansing and disinfection in a satisfactory manner of the said yards, stables, sheds or other premises.	, .
2.	In the event of any railway or steamship company or other corporation refusing or neglecting to carry out the orders of_ the inspector in regard to such cleansing or disinfection, or in the event of such company or corporation neglecting to maintain its yards, stables, sheds or other premises for the use of animals, in a clean, comfortable and sanitary condition, the inspector may condemn the said premises ^ as unfit for use ; whereupon the said premises shall not be used for the accommodation of animals until such time as the orders of the inspector in regard thereto have been satisfactorily carried out.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I move to substitute ' person ' for ' corpora-


Rufus Henry Pope: tion ' in the second and fourth lines of subsection 2.


Andrew B. Ingram: Has any railway or steamship company refused to comply with this rule ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: They have not refused but they sometimes have not acted, and we wish to have the power to stimulate them.


James Gilmour: Have you ever asked them to act ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Oh, yes; and not only asked but ordered them to do so.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Would it not be better to insert after ' corporation,' ' or person ' ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I am told that legally ' person ' includes ' corporation.'


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Technically, I do not think that a railway or a company is a person.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I am willing to make the change, and I move to amend by striking out the word * corporation ' and inserting the word ' person.'


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to, and section agreed to.
On section 46,
The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I will reserve this section in order to give an opportunity for further discussion. I move that the committee rise, report progress, and ask leave to sit again.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and progress reported.

[Stage Direction]
The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE moved the adjournment of the House.
Robert Laird Borden: What business shall we expect to-morrow ?
The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE We will take up first the Railway Bill, then later on go into Supply.


Robert Laird Borden: A week ago I gave notice to the House that I proposed to move a certain motion, and I consented on Thursday last to let the motion stand until to-day. Although I did not make any stipulation about it, I was under the impression that the House would be moved into Committee of Supply to-day, as I extended my motion at tlie request of the government. If the House is to be moved into Committee of Supply to-morrow, it is desirable that the motion should be made at such time as would enable any debate that arose on the motion to be proceeded with and concluded.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: In the absence of the Minister of Finance to-night, I would not like to make any pronouncement. But whenever the House does go into Committee of Supply, we will try to meet my hon. friend's views. I do not understand that he desires particularly that that should occur to-morrow; but if the House goes into Committee of Supply tomorrow, we will try to meet the hon, gentleman's wish.


Robert Laird Borden: I agreed to permit it' to stand. I said that I would allow it to stand until Monday, which is to-day. Of course, there was no understanding about it other than what would be implied by what took place, which was just about in the words I have endeavoured to give my hon. friend just now.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I will report the matter to the hon. Finance Minister, who will no doubt try to meet the hon. gentleman's views.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House adjourned at 11.45 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Tuesday, June 9, 1903.