1903-06-24

The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE (Hon. Sydney Fisher).: Mr. Speaker, I desire to rise to a question of privilege. I notice in the Ottawa ' Citizen's ' report of what occurred in the House last night that the hon. member for East Northumberland (Mr. Cochrane) stated that the Hon. Sydney Fisher was a director of the Montreal ' Herald ' Company'. I wish to state most emphatically that this is not the case, that I have- not been a director of the Montreal ' Herald ' Company since I have been a minister of the Crown ; and, furthermore, when I became a minister of the Crown I disposed of my stock in that company, and have had no connection with it in a pecuniary way since.


Mr. SPROULE.: I may say that I understood the hon. member for East Northumberland to say that it was understood. He did not say whether it was correct or not.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: The report in the ' Citizen ' states it most unqualifiedly.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: He did not say whether it was correct or not.



THE PRINTING COMMITTEE.

Mr.  C. H.@: PAItMELEE (Shefford). Mr. Speaker, in rising to move concurrence in the third report of the Joint Committee of both Houses on the Printing of Parliament, I desire to make a brief explanation. Following a practice which has grown up, the committee ventured to recommend to this House the purchase of a certain number of copies of a book entitled ' Decisions of Speakers of the House of Commons.' The committee felt justified in taking that position, rely'ing upon the validity of the precedents which had been established in 1893, 1895, 1896 and 1898, when reports of a similar character had been concurred in by this House. My attention has been called to

631*

the constitutional aspect of a procedure of that kind. The committee is .prepared to assert all its rights and to exercise all the powers that are given to it ; but, on the other hand, it has no desire whatever to insidiously undermine the British constitution. It seems to me that when the committee makes a recommendation of this kind, and it is concurred in l>y the House, we strike at one of the fundamental principles of the constitution in respect to the appropriation of public moneys. It is a well known principle of the constitution that all appropriations of public funds and public revenues have to be initiated by the Crown and have to be brought down to this House by means of a message from His Excellency the Governor General. This question lias never been definitely settled, though at one time or another it has been brought up in this House. I would be very glad, as chairman of the committee, as I am sure all members of the committee would be, if this question were settled for all time to come on lines that would guide us as to our future action. There is no doubt that the Printing Committee has full power with respect to the printing of parliament, but I am not aware that any other powers are conferred on the committee. While on my feet, I might say that very often motions are made in this House to authorize the printing of parliamentary documents. Even that, I believe, is irregular, because I think that under the powers vested in the committee all motions respecting public and parliamentary printing should first be considered by that committee, and be brought before the House in the form of a report from us. In moving the adoption of the report, I have decided, for the reasons I have stated, to drop the particular clause recommending the purchase of books, which, logically, should be followed by an appropriation of money. I beg to move, seconded by Mr. Cowan :
That the third report of the Joint Committee of both Houses on the Printing of Parliament be concurred in, save and except the last paragraph, recommending the purchase of a book entitled ' Decisions of Speakers of the House of Commons.'


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr. SPEAKER.: I have the honour to inform the House that I have received the following letter from His Excellency the Governor General's secretary :
Ottawa, 24th June, 1903.
Sir,-I have the honour to inform you that the Honourable Sir Henri E. Tasehereau, acting as deputy to His Excellency the Governor General, will proceed to the Senate Chamber on Thursday, the 25th inst., at 4 o'clock p.m., for the purpose of giving assent to certain bills which Mr. PARMELEE.
have passed the Senate and House of Commons during the present session.
I have the honour to he, sir,
Your obedient servant,
F. S. MAUDE, Major, Governor General's Secretary.



QUESTIONS.


[Stage Direction]
Mr. LEFURGEY-by Mr. Hackett-asked :
Has the government taken any steps to obtain the opinion of the law officers of the Crown with regard to the points brought forward by the government of New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island on the question of representation in this House, viz.: the objection of the government of New Brunswick in connection with the proposed Redistribution Bill applying to that province ; and the protest of the government of Prince Edward Island against having the number of members from that province in the House of Commons reduced below six ?
The MINISTER OF JUSTICE (Hon. Charles Fitzpatrick).: The government have consulted the Department of Justice in respect to the points brought forward by the governments of New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island on the question of representation in this House, and the opinion given by the Department of Justice lias been sustained by the Supreme Court on a reference to that court.


EXPERIMENTAL FARM-MISS HAGAR.
Mr. TALBOT asked :: 1.	Is a Miss Hagar employed at the Central Experimental Farm ?
2.	How long has she been in Canada ?
3.	Who recommended her 1
4.	What is her occupation ?
5.	How long has she been employed ?
6.	What salary does she receive ?
7.	Has any addition, or change, in any of the buildings on the farm been made on her account ?
8.	What is the cost of such addition, or change ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE (Hon. Sydney Fisher) :: 1.	A Miss Hagar is temporarily employed at the Central Experimental Farm.
2.	About eight months.
3.	She was recommended as having had a thorough training in botany and other branches of natural science at Owens College, Manchester, England, by Professor Weiss, one of the professors in that institution of learning, and by Professor Marshall Ward, professor of botany in Cambridge University, England. She was also recommended by Professor H. T. Bovey, Dean of the Faculty of Applied Science, McGill University, Montreal.
4.	She has been engaged in special expert work in making up for the director of

experimental farms records of the large *collections of trees and shrubs at the Central farm and cataloguing the collection of herbaceous plants, also in compiling scientific details on varieties of cereals, the action of fertilizers, and other topics for the use of the director, for bulletin purposes, and for his evidence before the Committee on Agriculture and Colonization of the House of Commons; detail work which bad unavoidably run into arrears, owing to the ever-increasing press of work under which the director labours.
5.	Since the middle of March last.
6.	Forty dollars a month.
7.	No addition; but some slight changes have been made in a room in the office building for her accommodation.
8.	The cost of the changes made on Miss Hagar's account has been about ten dollars.
OWEiN SOUND HARBOUR.


Mr. THOMSON (Grey) asked :: 1.	What are the names of the party, or parties, who measured and valued lot number 13, on the east side of West street, and north of Front street, required for the improvements to harbour at Owen Sound ? What are the names of the party, or parties, who measured and valued water Jot at mouth of the Polawatamie river, and transferred to Harrison & Sons ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS (Hon. James Sutherland) :: 1.	Lot No. 13, on the east side of West street and north of Front street, is not Indian land.
2.	John Mackenzie, of Presqu'isle, in the county of Grey, examined and valued a marsh lot near the mouth of the Polawatamie river, in the town plot of Brook, which was sold by the Department of Indian Affairs to John Harrison.


CAPACITY OF DREDGES.
Mr. THOMSON (Grey) asked :: What is the capacity of the dredge working at Midland ; and what is the capacity of the dredge working at Penetanguishene ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS (Hon. James Sutherland).: 
IMMIGRANTS-QUEBEC.
Mr. WILSON asked :: 1.	How many immigrants arrived at the port of Quebec during the month of May, 1903 ?
2.	How many were rejected by the medical inspecting officer of the government ?
3.	What became of those so rejected ?
The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS
(Hon. James Sutherland) :
1. For Canada	 13,057
For the United States ....	2,646
Total	 15,703
2.	Six-five destined for Canada and one for the United States.
3.	All deported to countries whence they came.


FUEL CONTRACTS.
Mr. CLARKE asked :: Has any allowance of interest been made on overdue and unpaid accounts to persons who held contracts for supplying fuel to the public institutions of the Dominion ? If so, what amounts have been allowed or paid, and to whom ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS (Hon. James Sutherland).: Not by the Department of Public Works.


Edward Frederick Clarke: By any other department ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Not that I know of.


CUSTOM'S DEPARTMENT.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. MONK-by air. Taylor-asked :
1.	How many men were employed by the Customs Department at leach port in the Dominion on the first day of May, 1900 ?
2.	How many of said men were transferred to the statistical staff at Ottawa between 1st May and 1st September, 1900 ?
3.	How many men were in the employ of the Customs Department at each of the ports of the Dominion on the first day of May, 1903 ?
The ailNISTER OF CUSTOMS (Hon. Wm. Paterson). It would have been more regular to move for a return, but if the House consents I can have tabulated reply put in 'Hansard' without reading same.
Lawrence Geoffrey Power: It would be more in order to have a motion made and the reply laid on the Table as a return.


Mr. TAYLOR.: I move that an order of the House do issue for a list of men employed by the Customs Department, as set forth in question published in the Orders of the Day.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and return laid on Table.

Mr. LENNOX asked :: What is the name of the chief clerk of correspondence, at a salary of $1,800 a year, men-

tioned and referred to in the estimates for the year ending 30th June, 1904, page 20 ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS (Hon. A. G. Blair).: The name is F. A. Dixon.


ROSEAU RIVER RESERVE.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. LaRIVIERE asked :
1. How many lots were sold at auction out of the Roseau River Indian reserve ?
2.	What is the description and acreage of each lot, the name of purchaser, and the price of the same per acre ?
The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS (Hon. James Sutherland) :: 1.	There were eleven sections and three lots sold.
2.	The attached statement gives the description and acreage of each lot, name of purchaser, and the price of same per acre.
Statement of Lands sold at Auction Sale of part of Roseau Ri ver Reserve.
Lands.	Acres.
Tp. 3, R. 2, E. 1st M.	
N. E. i 1		160
X. W. i t		160
S. E. i 1		160
S. W. il		100
N. E. f 2		160
N. W. 4 2		100
S. E. i 2		160
a w. i 2		160
Tp. 2, R. 2, E. 1st M.	
N. E. 1 12		160
N. W. i 12.. . 		160
S. E. 4 12		160
s. w. 412		160
N. E. J 13		160
N. W. 4 13		160
S. E. 4 13		160
a w. 413		160
N. E. 4 14		160
N. W. 4 14		160
S. E. 4 14		160
a w. 414 		15032
N. E. 1 23		160
N. W. 4 23		160
a E. 4 23		160
a w. 4 23		160
N. E. 4 24 		160
N. W. 4 24		ICO
a E. 4 24			160
a W. 4 24 		160
N. E. 125		160
N. W. 4 25		160
a E. 4 25		160
S. W. 4 25		160
N. E. 4 26		160
N. W. 4 26		160
S. E. 4 26		160
a w. i 26		160
N. E. 4 35		160
N. W. 435		160
a E. 4 35 		160
S. W. 4 35 		160
N. E. | 30		160
N. W. 436		160
S. E. 4 36		160
a W. 4 36		160
Lot A 		237
	259 87
Lot C		171-45
Purchaser and Post Office Address.
Purchase
Price
per Acre.
S cts.
J. B. Robinson, Bathgate, North Dakota
Thos. Gregory, Wingham, Ont


Rev.   J.@: Hogg, Winnipeg, Man	
J. J.	Baskerville, Cando, North Dakota.
II	II	[DOT]II	II	.J. H.	Baskerville	n	.
10 00 10 00 10 75
10	75
11	00 13 50 12 50 12 25
Thos. Gregory, Wingham, Ont	
H. P. Pennock and Michael Scott, Emerson, Man	
J. Parent, Letellier, Man	
L. Ironside, Winnipeg, Man	
J. C. Ginn, Dominion City, Man	
II	II		 [DOT]
W. J. Hepburn n		
H. Clark, Emerson, Man	
R. Frank Curran, Emerson, Man	
Jos. Hotf, Winnipeg, Man


Fred A.: Curran, Emerson, Man	
J. Parent, Letellier, Man	
Michael Scott, Emerson, Man	
Philippe and Omer Manseau, Letellier, Man	
J. Parent, Letellier, Man	
J. Parent, Letellier, Man	
August Knutt, Emerson, Man	 f	
H. P. Pennock,	h	
Wm. Scott, Whitewater, Man	
J. Parent, Letellier, Man	
E. Mortlock, Dominion City, Man			
Geo. Ganssle, St. Thomas, North Dakota	
J. Parent, Letellier, Man	
Michael Scott and S. J. Elkin, Emerson, Man	
Thos. Gregory, Wingham, Ont	
J. Parent, Letellier, Man	
Michael Yanke, Emerson, Man	
E. and H. H. Casselman, Emerson, Man..
S. J. Elkin, Emerson, Man	
W. B. Pitfield, Calgary, Alta	
Lena Waddell, Dominion City, Man. .. Geo. Ganssle, St. Thomas, North Dakota..
M. W. Whitely, Emerson, Man		.
ti	H
14 25
13	75
14	50 14 00 14 50
13	00
14	25 14 75
14	00 12 00
15	25 12 50 12 75
12	75
13	00 13 00
12	50
13	25 13 25 13 00 15 00
13	75
14	00
15	00 13 25 13 25
12	75
13	25 13 75 13 00
13	00 12 75
12	50
14	00
13	50 13 50 11 25 11 50 11 25


Haughton Lennox: 


MAIL SERVICE, EMERSON BRANCH.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. LaRIVIERE asked :
1.	Is it the intention to organize a daily mail service all along the line of the Emerson branch of the Canadian Pacific Railway, and have regular mail cars in connection therewith?
2.	Will a regular daily mail service be organized along the south-eastern branch of the Canadian Northern Railway as soon as a daily train is secured for that service ?
3.	Will a tri-weekly mail service soon be organized between Emerson, Ridgeville and Overstone, in the electoral district of Pro rancher ?
The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS (Hon. Janies Sutherland) :: 1.	This matter is at present engaging the attention of the department.
2.	This question will receive due consideration when a daily train service is inaugurated.
3.	No application has been received.


ST. BONIFACE MONEY ORDER OFFICE.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. LaRIVIERE asked :
1.	How long is it since the money order office of the town of St. Boniface has been closed, and for what reason ?
2.	Would it not be advisable to reorganize that office, and open a post office savings bank in connection therewith ?
The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS (Hon. James Sutherland) :: Money order
business was temporarily suspended at St. Boniface on the first instant owing to certain irregularities in the post office accounts, but will probably be resumed at an early date. The postmaster at Winnipeg has meantime been instructed to pay orders on St. Boniface. St. Boniface is already a savings bank office, and saving bank business will also be resumed as soon as possible.


MARTIN JEROME. M.P.P.
Mr. ROCHE (Marquette) asked :: Has Martin Jerome, M.P.P., in the employment of the Department of the Interior, as homestead inspector, or forest ranger, been authorized to tell the Mennonites of the village of Hochstadt that they will get no free permits to cut timber for fuel unless they vote for the opposition candidate at the coming local election in Manitoba ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS (Hon. James Sutherland).: No.


MR. L. W. HERCHMER'S PENSION.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. SCOTT-by Mr. Macpherson-asked :
1. Has the right honourable the Prime Minister received a copy of a resolution adopted by the North-west legislature, on motion of Dr. DeVeber (Lethbridge) and Mr. R. S. Lake (Grenfell), on Monday, 15th June, 1903, in the following terms
Resolved, that in view of the long and eminent services rendered to the North-west Territories by Mr. Lawrence W. Herchmer, during the fourteen years he was in command of the North-yvest Mounted Police, this House is of the opinion tlat as a special case Mr. Herch-mer's pension might be increased and made equal to the sum which he would have enjoyed
as retiring allowance, had he come under the provisions of the Officers' Pension Act (N.W.
M.	P.) now in force.
2. Will the government take action to meet the suggestion expressed by the resolution ?
The PRIME MINISTER (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier) :: I have not seen the resolution on which Mr. Scott makes his inquiry, but I understand that one has been passed by the local legislature of the character indicated in question.
Lt.-Col. L. W. Herchmer was superannuated from the 1st August, 1900, on an allowance of $1,144 per annum, representing twenty-two fiftieths of his salary as commissioner of the North-west mounted police- his service having been twenty-two years.
The Officers' Pension Bill came into effect on the 1st July, 1902. Had the Act been in force when Col. Herchmer was retired, he would have received a pension of $1,584 per annum, instead of $1,144 under the Superannuation Act-a difference in his favour of $440 a year, but it is not intended to make the Act retroactive.


BRITISH PREFERENCE TARIFF.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. SCOTT-by Mr. Macpherson-asked :
1.	Has the government obtained information of a payment of duty made at Montreal, in August, 1902, upon the consignment of seven cases (numbered 4364, 4365, 4366, 4367, 4368, 4369 and 4370, respectively) of German goods known as Stranslcy steel ware, billed from New York to the Smith-Ferguson Company, limited, Regina,
N.	W.T., particulars of which consignment were supplied to the honourable the Minister of Customs in this House on the 14th of May last ; and from which consignment Richard Blain, Esq., the honourable member for Peel, in September last, at Regina, bought one teapot and alleged later, publicly, that the Regina merchant ' who brought it in told me he got the benefit of the preference on it ' ?
2.	If so, was the duty on the consigmnent paid under the general tariff, or under the preferential tariff ; and did, or did not, Mr. Blain's German teapot come in improperly and obtain the benefit of the British preference ?
The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS (Hon. Wm. Paterson) :: Stransky & Company paid duty at Montreal in August, 1902, under the general tariff. without rebate of duty under the preferential tariff, on a consignment of seven cases of Herman goods, numbered 4364, 4365. 4366, 4367. 4368. 4369 and 4370. containing coffee pots and other enamelled hollow-ware, the packages being marked on the invoices ' Regina, N.W.T.'


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 227,
No train shall pass in or through any thickly peopled portion of any city, town or village, at a speed greater than six miles an hour, unless
[Stage Direction]
the track is fenced in the manner prescribed by this Act.
The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS (Hon. A. G. Blair).: I propose to amend this section, first by striking out the word 'six' and inserting the word 'ten'; second, by inserting after the word ' fenced ' the words 'or properly protected'; and, third, by adding at the end of the section the words ' unless permission is given by some regulation or order of the board, the board may limit such speed in any case to any rate which it deems expedient.'


Mr. LANCASTER.: I would ask the minister to explain exactly what is meant by these words ' or properly protected.' The old law from which this section is copied had not these words. I am afraid the section will be too wide to be much of a protection to the public upon the highway, if it is changed in the way proposed, unless we have something in the subsequent sections of the Act providing proper and adequate protection. The law as it is to-day allows no running at a higher rate than six miles an hour unless tlie track is properly fenced. I see that the minister is increasing that to ten miles an hour. Under the clause as the hon. minister proposes to amend it, even if the track is not fenced, the railways escape liability if the track is ' properly protected.' I do not know what that means, and I doubt very much whether the committee does ? I do not know any section of the Act providing for definite, proper protection on highway crossings. A great many different kinds of crossings may be made. But, in the earlier part of the Act, the minister told us that this would be made all right in the part we are now dealing with. We should have a definite, easily understood law, so that the people may know what their rights are throughout the Dominion at the ordinary highway crossings. We know that, if some town or thickly populated municipality goes to the expense and makes an appeal to the board, the board is likely to make some special order about it. But what about the ordinary highway crossing where the people have to go back and forward in pursuance of their ordinary avocation ? What is the protection there 1 What does this provide in the case of a farmer hauling his grain to market, making a proper use of the highway and meeting with an accident because a train is running at a speed greater than ten miles an hour ? Who is to say what his rights are ? There will be nothing in the Act to say what the protection should be. If we had the law as it is to-day it is easily interpreted, for everybody knows what proper fencing is, or. if not, he can find out. With all due deference to the hon. minister I think the way in which the law was first put before us is much better than it will be with the insertion of these words, ' or properly protected.' This Act requires the track to be fenced at million. Mr. PATERSON.	*
way crossings. Then, why not make them make the railways liable if they do not comply with the law. But if the amendment prevails, the railways will not be practically liable for accidents if they fail to comply with the law. The law will not be carried out, because nobody can know whether the track is ' properly protected ' or not. If this Act is going to provide that highway crossings must be fenced in a certain way, then the company ought to be responsible if they do not fence their tracks in that way. Before I sit down I would like to say that I do not think the words proposed to be added to the section ought to be accepted. If these words are adopted the effect will be that prima facie, the company are bound to protect these crossings in a certain way, yet, if the board chooses, it can give them permission to do otherwise. I do not think there ought to be one law for one township and another law for another; one law for one county and a different law for another county. I am against delegating to the board control of matters of this kind. I am as much in favour of the primary objects of the Bill-the appointing of a commission to deal with those matters that have been causing so much discussion in the country-as is the hon. minister or any other member of this House. But this is a matter that ought not to go to a commission, the power to say what should be the proper protection of ordinary crossings. The way it is now proposed, the board may fix the rate of speed over a crossing. I say that the ordinary evei'y day person in this country ought to know that is a proper rate of speed at an ordinary crossing, whether it is well protected or not, at which a train should run. Now, the minister proposes to let them out of the fencing in the manner prescribed by this Act, if they protect it in the manner prescribed by this Act. I do not know anything in this Act requiring any protection, and I am contending that either these words ' or protected as required by this Act ' should be' cut out, or else that there should be some well defined protection required at every crossing in the thickly populated parts of cities, towns and villages. The ordinary inhabitant as he comes to town and has to cross these tracks, is entitled to know what is the rate of speed at which trains are allowed to run, and this is allowed to be changed as now proposed, so that not only can the rate be as prescribed by this Act, which does not specifically describe it, but the power of fixing the rate is delegated to a commission. That must be what the minister has in his mind, that the board of commissioners are to settle what the rate of speed must be. Now, there should be a chance for the everyday man to know what the rates ire, he ought to have a right to see that this Act is carried out definitely and clearly in every place.


Mr. COWAN.: Do you not think the Sunday man ought to have that right as well as the everyday man ?


Edward Arthur Lancaster: The everyday man goes out on Sunday. The hon. gentleman travels as much on Sunday as I do, and I think we are both everyday men. I think the hon. gentleman knows what I mean.
A man interested in the drainage which he brought up the other day is not able to come down to Ottawa and see these commissioners on every little matter that may require his attention, and which may be of importance to him though not to others. Now here is a section that is meant to be a guide, that is meant to be a prima facie rule. What dees it amount to '! How can any one tell what it means without invoking the aid of this commission ? I do not think this commission ought to have the power to say that in any village, city or town the trains should exceed a certain rate, notwithstanding that they are breaking the provisions of the Act that require certain protection in the way of fencing.
I think if we had the section put in this Bill as drawn by the minister originally, we would have a much better enactment.
I say that unless it can be improved upon, unless it c.m be shown to be unreasonable or unworkable, then that provision ought not to be amended. It would then read clearly and distinctly that they could not exceed ten miles an hour unless the track was fenced in the manner prescribed by the Act. That would be all that ought to prevail. If they can disregard thu fencing as required by tlie Act, and this Act does not require them to protect in any particular way, then make them responsible for it. The minister is proposing to delegate to the board power to limit such speed to any rate ^ which it deems expedient. He is undertaking to a \ it at not less than ten miles. I think it should be fixed so that the board cannot change it at their mere whim.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I did not think so much could be said upon the subject of these words ' or other protection.' It is a larger theme than I had imagined. I do not attach a great deal of importance to the words ' or other protection.' They were put in there because the fencing is not always possible, and fencing is not the only mode in which protection may be given. No trouble has ever arisen, but as a matter of fact there are places which require to be protected, and which are protected, without fencing, and it was thought well in going over the Bill again to enable them to provide other protection which the board should think sufficient and ample for the purpose. The hon. gentleman objects to such enormous power being given to'the board. Well, that is a very trifling power compared with many of the powers which are conferred upon the board. I am
not at all alarmed that the power will be abused in any shape or form. It is necessary that in all classes of this character there should be some elasticity, or if there cannot be elasticity under the Act itself, then some working tribunal should have the opportunity of saying when they should insist upon tiie outside limit or when they may modify or minimize that limit. When we had a little talk the other day about the rate of speed at which trains should run through cities and towns, two or three hon. gentlemen opposite suggested that the rate should be fixed and that the board should be given no right to limit the speed because railways run a great deal faster than they used to. The rate which we have fixed here is the rate which is allowed street railways to run on all streets in the cities of Canada, so far as I know. This rate can be run without any danger to the public, because that is not a minimum but a maximum speed. In the amendment which we propose here we are allowing the board to diminish that rate in any proper case. The hon. gentleman has argued as though the board were given by this section power to exceed that rate. That is not the fact, it is the other way. Now what harm is there in enabling the board, in a proper case, to reduce this limit of speed according to their judgment ?


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Does the minister say that this amendment does not allow them to increase the rate ? It does not say * reduce,' it says ' limit.'


Tiie MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: As we had it originally the Act provided that no train should be run at a speed greater than six miles an hour, we propose to make it ten miles an hour. I was wrong in thinking that this provision did not allow them to increase the speed. The bo-rd may 'may limit such speed in any case lo .,uy rate which it deems expedient.' That may 0pen to the view that they would have pe*-v,;ssjon to increase it.
Mr. LANCASTER, j j- tqle minister will change ' limit ' to decre....^ , pe wouid meet my argument.
The MINISTER OF RAILW^o AND CANALS. There is no reason wn., VQU should not allow the board in any case . determine whether the rate might be higher or lower. In any proper case to be investigated. we are satisfied that the power would be safely and wisely exercised.


Edward Frederick Clarke: May I ask the hon. minister if there has been any general demand, for the amendment which the hon. minister proposes to increase the rate of speed at which trains may pass through any thickly peopled portion of any city, town or village from six miles an hour to ten miles an hour.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I have not heard of any general

demand. Considering the relative rates of speed and what they were when this six miles was first fixed I think ten miles an hour is not an unreasonable extension. Then we have the additional fact that with the appliances which are now available you can stop a train in fifty or sixty feet and sometimes in less than that, whereas, under the old method you could not stop a train in four or five times that distance.
No train shall pass in or through any thickly peopled portion of any city, town or village, at a speed greater than ten miles an hour, unless the track is fenced or properly protected in the manner prescribed by this Act.
The train may proceed through a thickly peopled part of a municipality at the rate of ten miles an hour, but it must not pass at a greater rate unless permission is afforded.


Edward Frederick Clarke: 
The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: If there is any increase in the danger it would be the duty of the board of railway commissioners to say that additional or necessary protection should be provided. That is what the board is constituted for. It will insist upon it that all the means that are required to ensure the protection and safety of the public shall lie adopted by the railway company. It is the business of the board to do that.


Edward Frederick Clarke: I do not understand it in that way. The clause reads as follows : Hon. Mr. BLAIR.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: We have a section dealing with that which imposes the duty upon the board to see that the company does all that is necessary in order to protect the public at a highway crossing. Section 186 provides that :
The board may by order grant such application upon such terms and conditions as to protection, safety and convenience of the public, as it may deem expedient, or it may order that the highway be carried over or under the railway. or be temporarily or permanently diverted, and that such work be executed, watchmen or other persons employed, or measures taken as under the circumstances appear to the board best adapted to remove or diminish the danger or obstruction arising or likely to arise therefrom.
All these things are in the power of the board.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Does the hon. minister consider that the provisions of section ISti deal with crossings that hare been in existence for years and that are not protected?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: 
Edward Arthur Lancaster: Is that not limited to an application for leave to construct ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: No, I do not think so. Section 187 deals with the case of a railway already constructed.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Does section 187 cover tile case we are discussing ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Yes.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Section 1S7 says :
Where the railway is already constructed upon, along or across any highway, the board may order the company within a specified time to submit to the board a plan and profile of such portion of the railway, and may, upon such submission. make any order in respect thereto as in the previous section provided.
Does that mean that, where, in the opinion of the commissioners, there should be
additional protection, or the necessary pro-

tection provided at level crossings. it is *within the power of the commissioners to order that such protection shall be provided?
The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS ANI) CANALS. Yes, the board may order any additional protection of any kind. There is no doubt about that. This power is exercised constantly. We have cases brought up in the Railway Committee of tile Privy Council frequently in which it is alleged that a [DOT]crossing is hazardous. Whether it is due to the rate of speed, or to an obstruction, or to any other cause, when it is known to be hazardous the board of railway commissioners will have power to impose any conditions by way of protection that it chooses.


Edward Frederick Clarke: The hazard is very much increased by the increase in. rate of speed and there are many crossings as the hon. minister knows that have no protection now. If the Bill permits the rate to be increased in thickly populated districts of cities from six to ten miles an hour, additional protection will be required ; and I think, if it is in the interests of the railway company that the speed should be accelerated, it is only fair that the railway company should pay the cost of the extra protection at these level crossings. The hon. gentleman is no doubt aware that there has been a great deal of correspondence with the department in respect to the danger of level crossings even with the rate of speed which has prevailed in the past. In respect to the speed of street railway cars, in nine cases out of ten. these cars stop before they cross the main thoroughfares.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I venture to say that they do not stop. .	-


Edward Frederick Clarke: In thickly populated parts of the city they stop before they come to the crossings to take on passengers, and that is the reason there is not so much danger.


Mahlon K. Cowan: Thickly populated within the meaning of the law would mean the residential portion of the city as well. It would not mean the business portion only.


Edward Frederick Clarke: If the speed is allowed to be doubled under this Act in thickly populated portions of a city, it should be incumbent on the railway to provide the necessary protection over and above what is necessary now.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: If the additional rate of speed is. in the judgment of the board more dangerous, it is their duty to order additional protection. You cannot do anything more than that.


Mr. FOWLER.: Is it the intention to define the words ' properly protected ' ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Proper protection would be such
protection as the board may deem necessary for the safety of the public.


George William Fowler: Would it not be better to say in the Bill that " proper protection ' meant gates or watchmen ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I think not. If you define ' proper protection ' you will limit it.


George William Fowler: For instance, in my own town these electric bells are not proper protection in any sense of the term. The noise on the street prevents the bell being heard, and it seems to me that they should be done away with. The rate of speed at a crossing often greatly exceeds six or ten miles an hour ; it is not unusual to see them running at a speed of 50 miles an hour over a crossing.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: If the hon. gentleman had much to do with the preparation of this Bill he would be of opinion that it is much better not to define what proper protection means.


George William Fowler: Some one must define it, if it is not defined in the Act.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: That, among other things, is what the board is constituted for. The Act requires the adoption of all methods that will ensure protection, and as these methods vary at different places, and different times, the board must have discretion.


George William Fowler: I cannot agree with the minister. It seems to me there are only two effective methods of protection ; one by automatic gates, and the other by watchmen, and you can easily define this protection. There has been no loss of life in my town, but there have been some serious accidents which would have been prevented if we had gates and watchmen instead of the bell alarm. The Bill should define what ' proper protection ' is.
_ The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS. If there are only two methods of proper protection, then the commissioners would know of it and order it.


George William Fowler: Why not put it in the Bill ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Because you will weaken your Bill if you do. The present Act provides for proper protection in such manner as the railway company requires ; there is no definition, and it has been found to work well. If the board has discretion, they may impose the most stringent measures where such measures are necessary. My hon. friend (Mr. Fowler) says that in some localities the protection by electric bells is useless.


George William Fowler: I did not say useless, but I say it is not efficient.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: The hon. gentleman says that the noise prevents the hells being heard, but there must be something wrong in the way the appliance is constructed or some defect in it, because it should ring at the crossing, and I cannot imagine that there would be such an enormous volume of traffic in Sussex as to prevent the bell being heard.


George William Fowler: Take the case of a deaf man ; his life should be protected just the same as a man who had perfect hearing.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Certainly.


George William Fowler: A slightly deaf man on a loaded wagon, travelling over a hard road would not hear the sound of the bell, because of the noise of the wagon. If you have a watchman or an automatic gate, he could not get over past the barrier.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: In the subsection which deals with the prevention of one train colliding with another, the Bill provides that a watchman should be there to give warning. You can just as well define what protection shall be afforded to foot passengers or vehicles using a crossing. I agree with my hon. friend that watchmen and gates are the proper protection. My experience is that where you have 100 accidents now, you would not have more than one if there was a watchman at the crossing. I do not believe that we should assume that this commission can decide what is proper protection any belter than the 214 members of this House. We come from all parts of the Dominion, and we know how the people live as well as this commission of three men can know ; we know what they are complaining of ; we are in touch with our constituents ; and we know what to do in regard to these unfortunate cases. People are killed too often by railway trains at these crossings, and the mere fact that the railway companies may have to pay some damages does not make it right. People do not want to have to run the risk, when they send their children to school, of having them killed, instead of coming home at night. We have inaugurated fast travel, and we are not thinking of the people who have to use the highways every day, and every minute of the day. If this Act is going to allow of a speed greater than has heretofore existed, we shall make no mistake in requiring railway companies to place watchmen at crossings in thickly populated portions of cities and towns. People talking together on the public highway, as they have a perfect right to do, might come to the track without hearing an approaching train. If a watchman were there, whose business would be to hold up his hand and stop those people by some sign, an accident would not occur ; and if the railroads are desirous of their trains travelling faster than


George William Fowler: they have been and they are to be commended to a certain extent for doing that in the interests of the public-still they must not do it at the cost of human life. The only people who would object to this provision for a watchman would be the railway companies, on the score of expense. At these crossings they would have to employ a watchman at probably $1.50 a day-perhaps some men who lost a limb or been injured in their service, and whofti they ought to pension. In England, men who have lost an arm or a leg in the service of a railway company, instead of being pensioned, are usually employed as watchmen, in which capacity they do something to protect life and at the same time do something for their employers. If this section is allowed to stand until we come to the end of the Bill, and if the members of this House will study it, I think they will almost unanimously agree with me that the proper thing, instead of leaving the protection of life entirely to the board, will be for us to have the Act say ' unless a watchman is stationed at these crossings to give warning of the approach of trains.' We are better able to decide the matter ourselves than the board, and the railway companies ought not to complain if that is done.


Haughton Lennox: The hon. Minister of Railways and Canals, in dealing with this section, and replying to the arguments advanced, tells us that in all cases there will be ample protection provided by the board. I understand that this is a case in which the board is not to interfere at all ; it is a case taken out of the jurisdiction of the board. The hon. minister shakes his head, meaning that I am not right. I will, however, read the section :
Nto train shall pass in or through any thickly-peopled portion of any city, town or village, at a speed greater than ten miles an hour, unless the track is fenced or properly protected.
The minister says that the board will see to it that the track is fenced or is properly protected. As I am pointing out, this is a case in which the railway company desires to run their trains at a greater speed than ten miles an hour. They can do so if the track is fenced as prescribed by the Act, or is properly protected. In other words, the railway company do not need to come to tlie board to get permission to run twenty miles an hour, so long as the track is fenced as prescribed by the Act, or is otherwise properly protected. Leave the question of properly protected out of consideration for the moment. We have this state of facts, that if the railway company have their line fenced in the manner prescribed by the Act, they cam run just as fast as they like. How does the jurisdiction of the court come in then ? We give the company permission to run their trains up to ten miles an hour without the track being fenced or protected
5333	JUXE 24, 1903	5334
at all. The point we have to consider as a committee is this : is it wise or safe to give to the railway companies, without requiring them to come to the board at all, and without fencing their lines in the manner prescribed by the Act, the right to run in populous places at a speed greater than six miles an hour or up to ten miles an hour V The old Act said six miles an hour, li e are jumping from six miles to ten miles. That is a pretty serious matter in itself. But we are taking another step. We are saying that if the railway is properly fenced or protected, it may run at a speed exceeding ten miles an hoar. IVe are also adding at the end of the section :
Unless permission is given by some regulation or order of the hoard.
Now, what is the meaning of that ? It is not a case, mark you, of where the railway is properly protected or fenced. It is a case of where it is not properly fenced or protected. It is a case of where it is not fenced or protected at all. That is the sense of the section. If the railway is not fenced, the trains can run up to ten miles an hour ; and if the company come to the board in a case in which the track is not fenced or protected, the board can give them permission to run at any greater speed that the board think fit. That is the meaning of the section, and that is a power which it is not safe to give to any board or body of men without this parliament considering first, very carefully, what the result of that legislation will be. The minister has been arguing that the board will protect and will order the fence. That is not what we are dealing with. This is a case in which there is no fence or protection, and in which the board can give permission to run trains at any speed they think fit. Is that wise to do ? I am not going to repeat the arguments made by other hon. gentlemen on this side, but I want to add that, aside from these points, I am altogether in harmony with the proposition which has been enunciated so often, and do not want to confer on .any board any power which we can as safely and as well exercise ourselves.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: My hon. friend is discussing this under a misapprehension. The only difference between this Bill and the existing law, either as regards fenced or unfenced localities or the control and regulation by this board and the Railway Committee of the Privy Council, is that we are giving a train, where the place is not properly fenced, the privilege of running ten miles an hour in place of six. That is all the difference.


Haughton Lennox: We are giving the board power to say further


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Undoubtedly, we are allowing the board to say that in a place where it would be perfectly safe to exceed ten miles
an hour, the trains may do it. Would it not be really impossible for this parliament, I do not care what the individual knowledge of the members may be-every member may have as full a grasp of the subject as the hon. gentleman-to equal the capability of the board of railway commissioners, who will be obliged to make themselves acquainted with the particular facts and circumstances of each case, and will know exactly what they are dealing with. My hon. friends are simply discussing this from a general standpoint. We are perfectly willing to take the general view of parliament on the question, but having laid down certain general rules which may safely be worked up to, we are willing to entrust the carrying out of these general rules to a tribunal, which will be perfectly experienced, which will have ample means of obtaining full knowledge, and will have no other interest than that of the public, and we are confident that such a tribunal will do what is best in the public interest, having every regard for public safety. The power we are conferring upo'u this board is precisely the same as that which has been conferred upon the Railway Committee of the Privy Council, with the exception that we allow the b6ard a greater latitude in certain cases than is allowed the committee, but I presume that this point was not very much considered or that additional power would have been given the Railway Committee. Under this Bill you have, in the first place, sections 180 and 187. which give the board of commissioners control of the way in which any railway may use any highway, either in crossing or running along. A railway cannot use the highway without submitting to the conditions which the board may impose, and in every case the board will, no doubt, impose such conditions as are necessary. In addition the board has general power to make an order regarding the rolling stock, apparatus, appliance, signals, methods, devices and other works which may be required for the proper protection of the public and the public property and the employees. There is a power which covers the whole field and leaves nothing to be said on the whole subject.


George William Fowler: I cannot conceive of any thickly populated portion of a town or village, where a crossing is unprotected, through which it would be safe for a train to run faster than ten miles an hour, but it would be possible for the board to authorize it to run fifty or sixty miles an hour or up to its full running speed. I do not see that ten miles an hour would be such a rate of speed as would endanger life any more than six, but I do not see why the board should be given any latitude at all with respect to this matter.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Do you know any reason why it should not ?


George William Fowler: Because that is the greatest rate of speed at which it would he safe for a train to be allowed to run through a thickly populated town or village where the crossing is unprotected.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Will my hon. friend give me a definition of what he means by thickly populated ? Is it not possible for the utmost range of judgment to be exercised as to what that is ? One person might think that a thickly populated district would be such a one as my lion friend lives in. Another would not think a district was thickly populated except such as you find in the heart of Montreal and Toronto. One might properly say that a speed of ten miles would be a legitimate rate through the most thickly populated districts. Then in a district one quarter as thickly populated, the speed might be twelve or fifteen miles an hour, just as well as not. We know that ten miles an hour is permitted to all our street railways, and there are districts through which they run with perfect safety sometimes twice that speed ? In some of the well-settled and populated suburbs of Montreal and Ottawa, they run at the rate of twenty miles and thirty an hour and more.	Why should they not be allowed to do so ? If it be proper to allow them to do that in a given place, why should there not be some authority which would be allowed to decide that point ? Why arbitrarily make a limit which would be absolutely unsuited in one district and entirely appropriate in another ? Why deprive this hoard of exercising its judgment in a particular case where it might safely exercise it 7


George William Fowler: I cannot agree at all with the hon. minister because it seems to me that the section of the original Act shows clearly what is meant. .


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: And it has never been lived up to. Nobody ever thinks of such a thing- it is not reasonable.


George William Fowler: I do not see that.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: It was about as fast as the hon. gentleman (Mr. Fowler) could walk.


George William Fowler: Well, I might have walked six miles an hour at one time, but I would hardly undertake to do it now. I do not see any particular harm in increasing the rate under this section to ten miles an hour. But the words ' thickly peopled portion ' make a distinction between the centre of the town and the outskirts of the town I can understand that a train could run through the outskirts of a town or village at forty miles an hour and not endanger human life any more than iu running through the country. But the Act reeog-Hon. Mr. BLAIR.
nizes a difference between the ' thickly peopled ' parts of a town and the rest. Take, for instance, the town in which I live, and which the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals knows very well. People are constantly passing over the crossing there, as the railway runs through the centre of the town.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Would the hon. gentleman (Mr. Fowler) consider that the expression ' thickly peopled ' would mean the same whether it was applied to a town or to a city ?


George William Fowler: No.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Yet, what the hon. gentleman urges is that we should make one rule to arbitrarily govern both.


George William Fowler: But the rule is laid down here, and the hon. minister is keeping that in the Act.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Certainly.
, Mr. LANCASTER. I might just as well ask the hon. minister what he means by the words ' thickly peopled ' in that Bill.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: According to my judgment you might have a ' thickly peopled ' portion of the smallest village and a ' thickly peopled ' portion of the largest city; and in the first case you might not have ten people, and in the second you might have a thousand. But my hon. friend would require that precisely the same rule should be laid down arbitrarily for all cases. I say there is no reason in that. Give to your board the discretion of saying whether they shall allow a wider limit in one case than in another.


Haughton Lennox: I wish to call the hon. minister's attention again to what has been already said, and to his reply. The hon. minister favours a certain amount of elasticity in this Act. I recognize that as quite right in some portions of the Bill. The hon. gentleman also says that the argument brought against this section has been general. Now, the argument I am endeavouring to submit is not general but specific. And we are dealing with a specific state of things; we are not dealing with anything that will be induced by any order or regulation of the board, but with something that we are now specifically defining. We are taking the case where the railway is passing through a thickly peopled part of a town or village, and there are no gates, fences or guards of any kind. The statute says that, in that case, the railway shall be at liberty to run at a rate of ten miles an hour. That is what the section says, and that is a question which the committee has to consider now, whether it is' wise


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Does the hon. gentleman (Mr, Lennox) say that they could run without gates or any other protection ?


Haughton Lennox: Without anything, as I read the section.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: The hon. gentleman does not find that there.


Haughton Lennox: I will read the section as the hon. minister proposes to amend it -
No train shall pass in or through any thickly peopled portion of any city, town or village, at a speed greater than ten miles an hour, unless the track is fenced in the manner prescribed by this Act. or properly protected.
Is not that saying in as plain language as can possibly be used that, the railway is at liberty to run, not having a fence or other protection, up to a speed of ten miles an hour ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: No.


Haughton Lennox: Then, I do not know the meaning of the language of any statute.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: The hon. gentleman knows the meaning of the language, but he has not in mind the other portions of the Bill. He cannot believe that we should incorporate in every provision everything relating to We are not now providing for highway crossings-we have done that. You must not ings-we have done that. You must not eliminate other provisions of the Act from consideration if you wish to understand the meaning of any section. But, that is just what the hon. gentleman is doing. This simply deals with the rate of speed in going through thickly peopled portion of any city or town. But, if you go back to section 184, you find it provided that a railway shall not be carried along or across a highway without the protection ordered by the board, or until the board shall have declared what protection is proper for that crossing. Or, if, at any future time, application is made for protection, the board may deal with it, and order suitable means for protection to be provided. That is a distinct and separate question from this. Let us not confuse the two.


Haughton Lennox: I understand the minister to say that this does not deal with streets or crossings ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: This does not, because we have dealt with that.


Haughton Lennox: Then it must apply to the other parts of a city, town or village-for instance, where the railway passes between buildings. Now, the case provided for here is where there is no special protection provided by the railway company, for the section expressly says so.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: If the hon. gentleman will pardon me, I do not know of any of the older portions of Canada in which the Bill does not provide for fences. The Bill says that fencing shall be erected, and there will be no portion of any district where the railway goes through what may be called improved land or settled land, where the railway company is not obliged to fence in the track on both sides. We may not have passed that-those sections may be further on.


Haughton Lennox: Yes, we have come to that.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I think those sections were allowed to stand. But we are providing amply for that. I cannot imagine a case in which, on it highway, in a city, town or village, there will not be a fence or other suitable protection. But a man may have a wall along his garden. That would not be a fence as provided for the highway, but surely it would not be necessary to erect a fence alongside the wall. The existing law provided that there should be a fence and did not allow for such a case as I have just cited, or where, for instance, a very heavy hedge would serve the purpose of a fence. The board will pass on all these things. So, in this way, we have provision for points between the highways. Now, as to highways, we require that these crossings shall only take place under the conditions determined by the board, and we think it is proper and necessary, when the board is satisfied that protection to life calls for the adoption of a certain device, that that device should be provided.


Haughton Lennox: I do not take the same view as the minister, and I think that upon reflection he will not take the view that this does not apply to crossings of highways. It is true, as he says, that there is a provision in the earlier part of the Act for general fencing of the railway from end to end when the territory is laid off and open to settlement. If this section has any meaning at all it is that in passing through a city, town or village where people are travelling along the streets, the railway train shall not pass faster than a certain speed unless there is some guard or fence to prevent the people running under the train. It can have no other meaning than that the intersections of streets or highways shall be fenced in order to guard the public. Now, without gates or guards of any kind the train can run up to a speed of ten miles an hour.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Unless the board allows them, they cannot cross the street at all without gates.


Haughton Lennox: Once having the right to run their trains upon a railway, the ordinary rights of passage from place to place under their charter, they have no more need to come to the hoard to regulate their speed when they run ten miles an hour than when they run only one mile an hour. If they want to run at a speed greater than ten miles an hour they have two alternatives : They have a right to erect gates or guards, which I admit would have to be conformed to the regulations of the board; or they have a right to come to the board and ask for permission to run at a higher rate of speed. If they erect gates on each side which conform with the description here, they do not need to come to the board at all.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: They have no right to run beyond ten miles an hour unless they get the permission of the board.	,


Haughton Lennox: The section says they can run at the rate of ten miles if they have their track fenced, they can run ten miles an hour without street protection of any kind. There is no provision in the Act respecting fencing across the streets; therefore, without coming to the board at all, they can run at a higher speed than ten miles an hour. If they come to the board the provision is ' or unless provision is made by some regulation or order of the board.' The minister says that that permission is coupled with a regulation by the board. 1 submit there is no such provision in the statute. This board is the creature of a statute, it has no power beyond that which is conferred upon it by statute. The statute gives a railway company the right to come to the board and ask them for an increased rate of speed. I submit it is not intended by the section that the board shall prescribe any directions by which the railway company shall be governed. It is inconsistent with the contention that the railway company should fence the road, because it is all a part of the section with which we are now dealing. It is putting in the hands of the board a power which we have not considered right in the past, a power to say that the railway company may run at a greater speed than ten miles an hour when no protection is provided for the public. The minister says : Why not give the board power to increase the rate of speed. The reason I submit why we should not give the board this power is that we have on the statute-book a regulation limiting the rate to six miles an hour, and the minister says that there has been no general movement in the direction of increasing the rate of speed. Therefore I say that finding upon the statute-book a regulation limiting the rate to six miles an hour, it is not wise to give railway companies the increased power from six miles to ten miles, and in addition, to Hon. Mr. BLAIR.
confer upon this board the power to give an unlimited right beyond that ten miles.
Amendment (Hon. Mr. Blair) agreed to.
On section 229, clause 2,
In every ease of a violation of this section, every such officer, servant or agent who has under or subject to his control, management or direction, any engine, tender or car which, or any portion of which, is allowed to stand cn such highway, longer than the time specified in this section, is liable on summary conviction to a penalty not exceeding fifty dollars, and the company is also liable for each violation, to a like penalty ; provided always thaj if such alleged violation is in the opinion of the court excusable, the action for the penalty may be dismissed but with costs in any evenit against the company.
The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS moved to strike out the words ' servant or agent ' on the second line, and insert after the word ' has ' on the same line the word ' directly.' Also to insert after the word ' is ' on the fourth line the words ' wilfully or negligently.'


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Why should these words go in ? I do not think that is a good amendment. The Bill requires that this shall not be done. If a man does not do his duty you make it necessary to prove that his remissness has not been wilful or negligent. If it is required that these people are to do certain things it should be assumed that they are responsible if these things are not done. If it is necessary for them to show that they are incapacitated in any way from carrying out the law the onus should be on them. If you expect them to carry out the duty laid upon them you should not put it in the power of any company or any person to say :	we did not do our duty but you
cannot prove that we failed in our duty wilfully or negligently.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I would suppose that if an engine were to break down on the highway or to be snowed under a snowbank on a highway it would be rather hard to hold the company or the men responsible.


George William Fowler: You provide for that in the latter part of subsection 2 by the words ' provided always that if such alleged violation is in the opinion of the court excusable.' It seems to me that the section as it stands In the Bill is all right, and if you introduce the words you propose you are going to spoil it.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Strike it out.


Mr. KENDALL.: I would like to. ask the hon. minister if the Bill makes any provision to prevent the public from being held up by a shunting engine at a crossing ?
The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND
CANALS. Yes, that is what we are doing.


Arthur Samuel Kendall: In this section ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Yes.


Arthur Samuel Kendall: I do not see any evidence of it.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: AVell, that is what I think we are doing. Perhaps we have failed, but we are trying to do that. I beg to move that subsection 2 be amended by striking out the words at the end of the section ' but with costs in any event against the company.'


George William Fowler: I do not think these words should be struck out, because, how is anyone bringing the action to know that there is an excuse on the part of the railway company until the matter has come before the court ? I think the hon. minister is putting an unfair burden upon the person who has been obstructed upon the highway. I think that the hon. minister should leave that section as it is now providing that costs in any event shall be against the company.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Leave it as printed, because, prima facie, there has been a breach and if the company has an indulgence given it by the court it should pay the costs.


Mr. GALLIHER.: I think you should leave the matter in the discretion of the court.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Not when there has been a breach.


William Alfred Galliher: If the court says that the breach is excusable surely the costs should be in the discretion of the court.


George William Fowler: Yes, absolutely.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Then, he will agree with my amendment to strike these words out.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: No, because if you struck them out the complainant would not get costs at all.


Haughton Lennox: In Ontario costs will follow the event.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I do not think so.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: The person bringing tlie action might fail because of the indulgence given to the company, but he ought to get his costs because he is justified in laying the information. Therefore, I think the hon. member for Yale and Cariboo is quite right in saying that costs should be within the discretion of the court.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I am quite agreeable to the question of costs being left in the discretion of the court.


George William Fowler: Strike out the words ' but witii costs in any event against the company ' and insert in lieu thereof ' and costs shall be in the discretion of the court.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS moved :: That subsection two be amended by striking out the words ' but with costs in any event against the company ' and inserting in lieu thereof ' and coats shall be in the discretion of thle court.'


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I would rather strike the whole section out than say as the present Bill says, that the cost shall be in any event against the company.


George William Fowler: I do not know but that the suggestion of the hon. member for Yale and Cariboo (Mr. Galliher) is a good one. The question of cost should be left to the discretion of the court. I would like to know what the hon. minister thinks about it. I do not think it should be struck out and left in such a position that the party making the complaint should get no costs where his action was shown to be justifiable. If it is left within the discretion of the court then, it is merely a matter of spite on the part of the person bringing the action, the court will not give him his costs, but if it is shown that his action is justifiable and if it is found that the obstruction is excusable, then the court will give costs to the complainant.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Does the hon. gentleman agree with the suggestion of the hon. member for Yale and Cariboo, that it ought to be left in the discretion of the court ?
Section, as amended, agreed to.
On section 224,


Mr. PORTER.: I was not in the House when section 224 of this Bill was considered, and I desire to call the attention of the minister to a matter which, I think, ought to be provided for by that section. This section provides :
The bell with which the engine is furnished shall be rung, or (except within the limits of cities or incorporated towns) the whistle sounded, at the distance of at least eighty rods from every place at which the railway crosses or is carried along any highway, and be kept ringing, or except as aforesaid, he sounded at short intervals, until the engine has crossed such highway.
In towns or cities or villages where railways pass, very frequently two and perhaps three, and in a case I know of four streets are crossed by the railway within a distance of eighty rods. I had occasion to try a case last fall with the Bay of Quinte Railway in which the court had to construe the section of the old Act which is similar to this. Iin that particular case the railway started from the Rathbun Company's works and before it reached what is known as the Kingston road, it had to

cross diagonally four streets in the town. Leaving the Rathbun Company's works the whistle was sounded and they kept on ringing the bell and sounding the whistle until the engine had crossed the first street. That sounding of the whistle and that ringing of the bell was all within eighty roads of the Kingston road, but they ceased blowing the whistle and ceased ringing the bell after the engine had crossed the first street and they contended before the court that under this section they were not obliged to sound the whistle or ring the bell after crossing the first street it being within eighty rods of the Kingston road. A person passing on the Kingston road was struck by the train and seriously iujured, his horse killed and his wagon demolished. The case was tried before Sir John Boyd and he held that the railway company having sounded the whistle and having rung the bell until the engine had crossed the first highway they had complied with the section o'f the statute, and they were not obliged to sound the whistle or ring the bell when crossing the intermediate streets, they being within eighty rods of the first crossing. It seemed to me to be a very hard ruling, but nevertheless the case was argued as ably as I could, and that was the decision. This *being the construction placed upon the-law by the courts, it appears to me that this clause should be amended so as to obviate such a ruling in future. I invite the attention of the minister to the matter.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Did the hou. gentleman appeal the case ?


Edward Guss Porter: I did not appeal the case. I had no occasion to appeal it because the case went to the jury. The judge found that there was sufficient evidence to send the ease to the jury and the jury beat the judge.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Edward Guss Porter: But in the judge's charge, he charged the jury that the company had performed its whole duty; the jury took the opposite view and held that the railway company had not performed its duty. They gave a verdict against the railway company and the railway company did not see fit to appeal. I would suggest that this section should be so amended as to compel the railway to sound the bell at every crossing.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: That is what it means.


Edward Guss Porter: That is what is intended no doubt, but the opposite construction was placed upon it by the court.


William Alfred Galliher: By the judge ; the jury set him right.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I do not see how it could possi-Mr. PORTER.
bly admit of such an interpretation ; I do not think you could use any language that could be clearer.


Edward Guss Porter: Stress was laid by the court on the expression ' and to be kept ringing until the engine has crossed such highway.'


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: That means every highway.


Edward Guss Porter: That was my contention and the judge said, no.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Would it be held that this provision of the Act is complied with if a train started to go one hundred miles and rang tlie bell before starting, and not afterwards?


Edward Guss Porter: That was not the holding. It was that if the whistle was sounded, eighty' rods from the first highway it need not be sounded again on a highway within that eighty rods.


Arthur Samuel Kendall: Would the minister be kind enough to point out to me where in this Bill the public are protected against a careless engineer who runs a train backward and forward on a crossing for say half an hour ? I know of a case where the public are delayed almost every day from fifteen minutes to half an hour by the shunting of cars across a highway.


Mr. MACLEAN.: On what railway ?


Arthur Samuel Kendall: The Dominion Coal Company's Railway, and the Intercolonial Railway.


William Findlay Maclean: This Bill does not apply to the Intercolonial Railway.


Arthur Samuel Kendall: It applies to the Dominion Coal Company's lime.


George William Fowler: The Intercolonial Railway is one of the worst offenders in that respect. I have known them to hold up traffic at a crossing for nearly half an hour.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I am afraid that my hon. friend has a very sharp eye for any little sins of omission or commission on the Intercolonial Railway.


George William Fowler: I do not think the minister is justified in saying that, because I have criticised the Intercolonial Railway very little since I have been in this House.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Not half as much as it deserved.


George William Fowler: Not half as much as it deserved.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Not half as much as you think you might, I suppose.


George William Fowler: Perhaps not half as much as I might in justice. I have suffered in

the same way as the hon. member for Cape Breton, and I trust that the minister will, through his employees prevent that in future.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: There is no doubt that the employees are very often at fault. I do not see how you can stop engines from going backward and forward on highways as long as highways and trains exist. We provide that a train shall not stand at a crossing for longer than five minutes at one time, and that is not unreasonable.


Arthur Samuel Kendall: That does not meet the case.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I suppose the only way to meet the case would be to stop the railway.


Arthur Samuel Kendall: The station agent should be empowered to insist that the man on the locomotive should make reasonable provision for the passage of the traffic which accumulates at crossings. Again and again I have seen a number of vehicles stopped for half an hour while these cars were being shunted backward and forward. Provision should be made to prevent that.


William Findlay Maclean: I will give the minister a case in point, where there ought to be a better regulation of the running of trains. There is a crossing in my constituency which is just at the exit of the Grand Trunk yard at East -Toronto village. All the shunting tracks there converge on the main line, and the sorting of freight trains takes place. This is done so rapidly, the trains running backward and forward at intervals of only a few seconds, that there is no chance for vehicles to cross. I have seen from twelve to twenty vehicles stopped at that particular point and prevented from crossing by this shunting. The board ought to have power to compel these trains to check up, say every second time, long enough to allow vehicles to cross.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: The board has that power.


George William Fowler: This section of the Bill will not meet the case brought forward by the hon. member for Cape Breton (Mr. Kendall), because it does not apply to the Intercolonial Railway at all, and we who live along the line of that railway will have no redress in case of traffic being obstructed.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: You will be able to get at it more easily than through the board.


George William Fowler: It does not have much effect, though.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Does the minister believe that it will be easier to bring the Intercolonial Railway to time than the railways controlled by this board ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Yes.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Then I think he is fortifying the argument of the hon. gentlemen on this side against clothing the board with all these powers.


George William Fowler: It might be easy for the hon. member for Cape Breton and those who think with him politically to bring the Intercolonial Railway to time, but the members on this side of the House may not find it so easy until we have a change of government.


William Findlay Maclean: Will the minister tell me what _ clause protects the public in case of shunting ?


An hon. MEMBER.: Section 229.


William Findlay Maclean: That does not do it at all. That refers to a train standing on a crossing. There are ten tracks at the point I refer to, and if you get across one you are pocketed among the others. The trains keep going up aud down the different tracks and completely block the traffic. I have been held at that crossing for over half an hour. The Bill does not protect the public in a case of that kind. I ask the minister to put in a small clause giving the board power to make a regulation to meet such a case.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I think we might insert, in section 229, at the end of the first clause, these words :
Or by so using the tracks in the shunting as to obstruct public traffic for a longer period than three minutes at one time.


Arthur Samuel Kendall: I scarcely think that meets the objection. They might obstruct the traffic for three minutes and then, after the intermission of a minute, obstruct it again.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: They must allow the traffic to get across. If they do not allow sufficient time for the traffic to get across, they are obstructing.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
On section 233-telegraphs and telephones,
William Findlay Maclean: In connection with sections 233 and 234, I think there should be a clause of this kind :
The company shall, subject to the approval of the board, grant equal telephone entrance to its stations to all individuals or telephone companies asking therefor. For every case of violation of this section, the servant or agent who has charge of the station is liable on a summary conviction to a fine of $100, and the company is also liable for such violation to a fine of $500. Any contract between the company and a telephone company or individual for exclusive telephone entrance to a station is declared to bo Illegal.
I am now bringing up a question which is a substantial grievance existing ail over this



country to-day. It is a fact that the Grand Trunk, the Canadian Pacific and the Canadian Northern companies have entered into contracts with the Bell Telephone Company, whereby that company has an exclusive entrance into all the stations of these three great railways. The result is that if a municipality establishes a telephone system, as the two thriving towns of Port Arthur and Fort William have done, or if the farmers of any locality, when they cannot get a satisfactory service from the Bell Telephone Company, establish a telephone service of their own, they are denied entrance to the railway stations of these railways. I say that should not be, but the railway companies should be compelled to give a telephone entrance to their stations to all persons applying for it on equal terms. In the township of Markham, in my constituency, and in the adjoining township of Pickering, in West Ontario, the farmers for a long time wanted telephone communication, and could not get it from the Bell Telephone Company. At last eighteen farmers and storekeepers in that neighbourhood united and established their own telephone system. Every one of them was a good customer of the Canadian Pacific Railway, travelled over it and gave it their freight ; and when they established this private telephone line and asked for a connection with the Locust Hill station of the Canadian Pacific Railway, they were told that they could not have it, that the agreement to which I have referred precluded it. The result is that these people cannot have telephone access to the station to ask whether the train is on time, whether their freight has arrived, or any other question in connection with the traffic of the railway.
The agreement to which I have referred is against public policy. I consulted eminent counsel and obtained the opinion that it was illegal. I had the company indicted before the grand jury, bat the judge held that it was doubtful whether the charge held or not, and instructed the grand jury to dismiss the case, or have the indictment drawn in a different way. If that be the case, surely the law ought to be amended. Let me state another instance, and I am sorry that the bon. member for Algoma (Mr. Dyment) is not here to back me up. The two thriving towns of Port Arthur and Fort William established a very satisfactory telephone system, owned by the municipalities, on the same lines as those followed by municipalities in Great Britain, yet although these two towns are on the line of the Canadian Pacific Railway, and do almost all their business with that railway, they are deprived of telephone access to the two stations in these places. That has occurred more or less all over Canada, and if we are to encourage the establishment of municipal telephone systems in this country, the law must be changed and the farmers in the municipalities must be given access Mr. MACLEAN.
to the railway station for telephone purposes. There is nothing of so much importance to the farming community to-day as the establishment of rural telephones. It has done a great deal in the United States to make life on the farm interesting and enjoyable, but if these people, who are forcing the monopoly to cut down its rates, are not to be allowed to bring their lines into the railway stations, they will not be able to do business. Half the telephone business of the farmers has to do with questions of freight, and the farmers can only get the information they desire by having free access to the railway stations. I have heard it argued in this House that this would interfere with the management of railways, because it would take up too much of the time of the station agent, and interfere with his other duties, but he need not answer the telephone at all unless when he is doing nothing else. Besides any man is free to go into a station and ask about his goods and the arrival and departure of trains, and why should he not have equal liberty to put these questions through a telephone ? There is nothing unfair in this, and in any ease surely the railway company is in a position to employ a boy or girl to answer these telephone calls. The other day I heard a gentleman say, in discussing this question, not very far from here, that if any attempt were made in the west to prevent the farmers having access with their telephones to railway stations, there would soon be cutting of wires. Well, when the telephone system is extended to that country, not a single line except the Bell Telephone Company will have access to the railway stations. Is it right that these railway companies, which have obtained enormous franchises from this country, should discriminate against any body who wants telephone access to their stations ? It is not in the interests of the farmers, it is not in the interests of the people who have given these railway companies immense subsidies and franchises.


Edward Frederick Clarke: It is questionable if it is in the interest of the railway companies.


William Findlay Maclean: It is not in the interest of the railway companies themselves. As I pointed out in a telegram I sent to Sir Thomas Sliaughnessey, surely you do not intend to treat in this way the people wTho are your best customers, who furnish traffic to your road, and who are simply asking the privilege of telephone access to your station. To-day there are private lines waiting the decision of parliament on this question.


Mahlon K. Cowan: Do you want every private line to have access to the railway stations ?


William Findlay Maclean: 1 have made it subject to the approval of the board. If you build a line to the station and wish to speak over

it to the railway agent, to ask about your freight, why should you not be free to do so 1 A man can make the inquiry by entering the door, why should he not be allowed to speak through a hole in the wall, when it can be done so much more expeditiously.


William Alfred Galliher: But do not have it a private line.


William Findlay Maclean: Well, the Bell line is a private line. I do not see how else you can define it.


William Alfred Galliher: Oh, no.


William Findlay Maclean: It is a line owned by a private corporation.


William Alfred Galliher: For the use of the public.


William Findlay Maclean: But a private line should have as much right as a corporation line with regard to access to a railway station. Let the hon. gentleman (Mr. Galli-her) suggest bow it can be done otherwise than it is done here. All I want is not to discriminate against one line in favour of another. I want this nefarious agreement between the Canad an Pacific and the Grant Trunk and the Bell Telephone Company declared to be against public policy. In my Bill I propose to provide that aiiy contract between a telephone company and a railway company giving exclusive access to the railway station, be declared illegal. And it ought to be declared illegal in the interest of the farming community and the business community', and for the general progress of the country. Nothing will do so much for the country as the cheapening of telephone communication. And here is this agreement made last year. Representatives of the company have said it is only a renewal of a former agreement. And the Bell Telephone Company got a year's grace from this parliament last year, and the Minister of Justice gave a pledge to the people of the country that he would bring in a law regulating the operation of the telephone companies, but so far, that law is not forthcoming. I have introduced a Bill of that kind, which is now before a sub-committee. I do not know that it will ever reach the House. But, now that the bon. minister has brought in a Bill dealing with railways, and now that we are considering the clause dealing with telegraphs and telephones, I appeal to the minister to take my suggestion and incorporate in his Bill this clause, or a clause having a similar effect.


Mr. ROSS (Ontario).: I notice that in these clauses relating to telegraphs and telephones, the position of the government is satisfactorily guarded. The government may have the exclusive use of telephone and telegraph lines, and the government may erect telegraph or telephone lines on the rail-1CS1
way's right of way. But since these sections were formed, a new element has sprung up in the country. That element is the telephone business. The telephone is extending throughout all the country districts. The matter which the hon. member for East York (Mr. Maclean) speaks of was a very live question in the riding next to mine last season. But the matter the hon. gentleman speaks of, the agreement between the railway companies and the telephone companies, was of such a nature that it precluded the farmers from obtaining connection with the railway station by their own independent line of telephone. Now, I seriously think that, as the telephone is to be such an important factor in our home life, we should see to it that me rights of the people in it are carefully guarded. I cannot see, for my part, why an independent telephone line should not have communication with the railway station. In many places throughout this country the railway station is practically the centre of the district. It is there the goods are carried to and it is from there the goods are taken ; and the communication of the people seems to be naturally with the railway station. And, the people being accustomed to the use of the telephone, I cannot see any difference between a person calling up the railway station by telephone and one going in at the door to ask a question of the station master. However, if it is thought to be too great a hardship to place upon the agent at the station the duty of answering the telephone, why not allow an arrangement whereby' an independent line or lines could keep an operator there for their one purpose '! Some arrangement of that kind should be made in the interests of the public. I have been thinking over the telephone business of the country, and 1 am not sure that the government should not own the trunk telephone lines and allow anybody to communicate over them who desires to do so. That is a question, of course, which will come up in the future. But we have telephone lines widely in use now, and the use is rapidly extending, it is a cheap means of communication as it is now carried on. In the western states, I am told, the farmers, even use the top wire of their fences for telephoning, and when they come to a highway crossing, they simply elevate the wire. It offers a very convenient way for the farmers to communicate with one another. Of course, it is not suitable for long distances, but, over short distances it works very well. There is no doubt that the telephone is with us to stay, and it is bound to be the medium of communication for the people.. Any law that interferes with the rights of the people in the use of the telephone matter, should be cancelled.


Mr. WRIGHT.: There is a point to which the attention of the government should be drawn, but which I have not heard men-

tinned so far. I am in the electric business and am planting poles about the streets of our town and know the difficulties we have to contend with, both with the people and also with the telephone and telegraph companies. We have gone to a great deal of expense in our town improving our streets, putting down nice boulevards, macadamizing the roads, laying concrete sidewalks, and generally trying to improve and beautify the town in every way. And it is most objectionable to have the telegraph company plant hideous poles wherever they see lit, not painted, but covered over with all kinds of notices, advertisements of patent medicines and so on. Something should be done to compel these people to put up uniform poles and paint them, and also to prevent them planting them where they are objectionable to the people. We paint our poles, but the telegraph people refuse to do so. These poles are an eyesore on our most travelled thoroughfare. We think that something should be done to bring these poles under the control of the government or somebody so that these people may be obliged to make these poles look as respectable as they can be made, and also to place them where they will be least objectionable. We think also that it is not necessary that the telegraph poles should be on the principal street of the town. We do not object to the ffeleplione poles, because they are used by every one. But the telegraph poles can just as well be put on the back streets. As to the main line leading to the office, which naturally *would be on a main street, we would not object to the poles. But, except for this, there is no reason why they should occupy the most prominent place in our town.


William Ross: This discussion impresses upon me the necessity of the government taking a step in advance, as has been done in other countries. In New South Wales, the telephone system throughout that whole state, including the city of Sydney, with a population much larger than that of any city of the Dominion, is owned by the government. In New Zealand, the government owns the telegraphs, and they also own then- railways, and that is something that we also should have in the interest of the people of the Dominion.


William Ross: While I agree with much that is in the motion of the hon. member for East York, I think that some of its provisions are rather drastic. I do not know that I should go so far as to enact a flue against the operator in case he refused to answer the telephone. It seems to me they would obey the law without a penalty. I suppose, however, you could hardly have a law without a penalty, ' but it struck me, as I listened to the amendment that the penalty seemed rather hard upon the operator, and, perhaps, upon the company.


Aaron Abel Wright: 


William Findlay Maclean: I have made this amendment on the lines of section 229, where there is a clause for a penalty in case of violation. I do not insist on the large sum of $50 and $500, if there is some kind of penalty. But I want to say in the last clause that any existing contracts of this nature are declared illegal. Now, I may be told that I will be interfering with existing rights. But as a matter of fact this contract is felt by the railway companies to be so bad that they have put into it a clause themselves w'hick will enable them to cancel it. I believe, Sir Thomas Shaughnessy is ashamed of it to-day, and is only waiting for an opportunity to cancel it, because it is so unfair towards the people wdio patronize his road. So if it is urged that to declare this contract illegal would interfere with any vested rights, I have only to say that the companies themselves have guarded themselves by inserting a clause that they can declare it off. While I am on my feet, I wish also to point out that in many places where these independent lines have been started, there is no Bell Telephone Company there, and yet the Bell Telephone Company debars independent lines from coming into the stations. These telephone lines run several miles from the railroad stations, to little centres twelve miles from the stations, where store-keepers, farmers and drovers wish to be in communication with the station, but they cannot get access to that station by reason of the agreement with the Bell Telephone Company. If that be the case, surely in all justice we ought to give these drovers, these farmers, and these traders, a right to use an independent telephone line in obtaining information from the railway stations.


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER.: Is this amendment a subsection or is it an amendment to the section ?


William Findlay Maclean: I will leave that to the minister to determine.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: The hon. gentleman proposes, I understand, to provide a penalty as a subclause to 234.


William Findlay Maclean: In addition to (B) which deals with telegraph and telephones, in any *way the hon. gentleman likes.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: That is certainly not germane to the subjects referred to in either of the two sections.


William Findlay Maclean: It is germane to telephones.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I do not see how it would be a subclause to either of the other two.


William Findlay Maclean: I did not say a subclause, it is to amend the section coming under B, which deals with telegraphs and telephones.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I am not going to deal with that, that is a private motion. The question arises whether this committee is ready to adopt such a proposition as the hon. gentleman has made. I am compelled to state to the committee what I think are objections to it. I think it would disfigure the whole Bill if we were to add to it a clause of this character. The hon. gentleman proposes that * subject to the approval of the board, the railway company shall grant equal telephone entrance to its stations to all individuals or telephone companies asking therefor.' Now, is that not a very serious proposition, that railway companies shall grant equal telephone entrance to all telephone companies and to all individuals V In the first place, the suggestion that any individual may claim the privilege of using the railway company's offices for this purpose, is so extreme and so indefensible a proposition, that I do not think it requires to be thought over very much.


William Findlay Maclean: Does the hon. gentleman recollect that all this is subject to the approval of his own board, which has his confidence ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I trust the parliament of Canada is not going to put upon record any declaration that the board will have to consider and determine whether individuals shall have the right to claim entrance to the stations of railroad companies. It is an utterly absurd proposition, it is entirely in violation of all principle. What right has this parliament to say that A, B, C and D may take possession of the property of a railway company, or of the accommodation which a railway company affords in their business, that telephone companies may come in and use their property, ' free gratis for nothing,' heat, light, room, wall (space, accommodation, all for nothing ? What kind of a proposition is that ? It is not merely socialistic, it is confiscatory. You incorporate a railway compa ny for the purpose of conducting a railway business; what right have you to say that they shall be under compulsion to allow their offices to be used by anybody that a telephone company may want to send there for the purpose of tendering a telephone message, that they shall provide wall space for that telephone, office room for a clerk or agent, that they shall bear out of their own pockets the expense ? The telephone company is a prosperous institution, it is a uesful and Important institution, and necessary for the business of the country, contributory to the success and prosperity of the country; but are you going to allow it to call upon the railway company to pay the expense
of the telephone company doing its own business ? Now, the hon. gentleman does not seriously mean to ask this committee to consider a proposition of that kind.


William Findlay Maclean: I never was more serious in my life, but I do not think the hop. gentleman is.


Mr. HUGHES (Victoria).: If one individual, then 15,000 or 20,000 may be allowed the same privilege.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I think it would be unfair to limit it to 20,000. I think the hon. gentleman would not be satisfied with less than 100,000. What I think would solve the whole problem, without taking anybody's property or time, or imposing any duties upon anybody else, which they do not want to assume from a business point of view, would be to permit somebody living in the immediate locality, in the neighbourhood of the station-as the hon. gentleman said, these stations are generally in populous towns, somewhere near the centre of the town-let the telephone company have a telephone in some place handy to the station, and when somebody wants to do business, let him go into the office and pay the agent for doing it, pay as they ought to pay. That would be a reasonable suggestion, and there would be no occasion then for confiscating anybody's property. There is no limit. I do not know where my hon. friend would stop in his socialistic legislation. The word ' radical ' does not begin to express it.


William Findlay Maclean: Go on, go on.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: And then does any one but my hon. friend suppose that a contract or agreement which has been made between a telephone company and a railway is illegal ?


William Findlay Maclean: An agreement against public policy ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Against public policy ?


William Findlay Maclean: Yes.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: My hon. friend is to be the final tribunal to determine what public policy is.


William Findlay Maclean: As much as the hon. gentleman is.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: My hon. friend is not willing to have anybody but himself have an opinion on this subject.


William Findlay Maclean: Yes, he is.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: He is not willing to admit that there is any room to doubt the reasonableness of his opinion and he is going to ask parliament to declare that a binding contract made under the law is illegal. My hon. friend tells us that the Canadian Pacific

Railway themselves are ashamed of the contract they made with the Bell Telephone Company. My hon. friend no doubt has communicated with the president of the Canadian Pacific Railway and has been informed that such is the case because he would not say so if he did not believe it. If they are ashamed why do they not seek for some mode of escape ? Under a clause of this contract that my hon. friend wants this parliament to declare to be illegal when it is illegal, provision .is made that by notice either party may terminate the agreement. This shameful agreement which the Canadian Pacific Railway admittedly avow is one that they are ashamed of has a clause which will enable them to terminate it. Terminate it and it is all over and you do not need to ask parliament to discredit itself by assuming to declare that a contract which is valid and legal is illegal. My hon. friend, with his extreme, radical ideas, says that this is against public policy. There is no reason for such legislation at all. These people can proceed upon a business basis, pay their money like men, have somebody at hand at the station to go in and get the information they want and answer their -calls. My hon. friend asserts that the machinery of a great parliament shall be employed in doing something which it would only be justified in doing under the most extreme circumstances. My hon. friend has told us the remedy. It is at hand and these people can employ it at any time they please. I shall trust that parliament will not feel called upon to proceed any further with the consideration of the amendment proposed by my hon. friend.


William Findlay Maclean: Mr. Chairman, I have had a good deal of this kind of badinage from the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals in connection with these propositions which I have introduced into this House, but I intend to follow him and to meet him on this question before the people of Ontario. He will have to settle with his supporters from Ontario for what he lias said here to-day, and the right hon. Prime Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) will have to settle with the people of Ontario for the nonsense that the hon. minster has spoken here to-day. The hon. gentleman has spoken as the attorney of the telephone companies, as a holder of telephone stock, and not as Minister of Railways and Canals, protecting public interests. He says that such a proposition as this disgraces the Bill. Let me read section 278 of the hon. gentleman's Bill :
Every company which grants any facilities for the carriage of goods by express to any incorporated express company or person, shall grant equal facilities, on equal terms and conditions, to any other incorporated express company which demands the same.
Is that socialistic ? Is that radical ? Is that allowing equal terms to all ? What he Hon. Mr. BLAIR.
said of me he said of his own Bill. Has he any explanation to offer to the committee ? Has he any excuse to offer to the committee or to the farmers of this country for this socialistic, this confiscatory legislation ? He uses the latest Oxford and Cambridge accent of the word ' confiscatory,' and I agree with him in that.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I am glad that the hon. gentleman agrees with me in something.


William Findlay Maclean: That the way for these people to do, the hon. minister says, is to put a telephone in some house adjoining the sation and get somebody from the station to attend to it. The way the answers are got to-day is through the Bell Telephone Company having a telephone in every station in this country. The railway companies are only too glad to allow them in, to give wall space and to give the necessary service to answer the calls. But by reason of this contract they say that no one else shall get in. The Grand Trunk Railway, Canadian Pacific Railway and Canadian Northern are allowed free telephones in consideration of that concession. They all get something for the exclusive use of the stations, but they get it at the expense of their own customers. If the people of Canada, who want this question of telephone service settled, insist upon their representatives in this House voting for this socialistic proposition, this radical proposition, they will get what they want and the question will be settled in the public interest. I would like the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals to go to any place in the county of York and talk as he has talked here to-day, or, I would like the right hon. Prime Minister to go with his entourage, including the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals, and speak in the same manner as the hon. minister has spoken here to-day.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I wTould not be the least bit afraid to.


William Findlay Maclean: We will meet the hon. minister there. He has asked his followers to throw this reasonable proposition out. I have brought it forward in a reasonable way, I have based it on a clause already in the Bill, I have done it in the public interest. I do not think it is socialistic, but I think it is right. Such legislation is demanded by the country to-day. Are the farmers of Canada not to have the same privileges that the farmers of the United States enjoy ? The people in the North-west Territories are rising to the importance of having telephone lines all through the west and we are inviting immigrants to come and settle upon our western lands. Are we to tell them that they are not to be treated in the same way as they are treated in Europe in regard to telephones ? Does the right hon. leader of

the government not know that in Europe, in Norway and Sweden, in Germany and elsewhere, where the people own their telephones, everybody has the right of access to the railway station to telephone and inquire as to the shipment of his goods. Moreover, they have their telephone for eight, ten and twelve dollars a year, while the Bell Telephone Company?* which is protected by the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals, is charging the people of Canada $25, $30, $40, $50, $00, and up to $100 a year for a similar service. I pay $175 a year for my telephone service.


William Alfred Galliher: It is cheap at that.


William Findlay Maclean: It is cheap at that and I can pay it. But, I have neighbours who cannot pay it. I know a gentleman living six miles out of the city who implored the Bell Telephone Company to give him telephone connection. Doctors, who are subject to call at all hours of the night are unable to secure a telephone service. My neighbour is a veterinary surgeon and horses are driven from five to twenty miles every night to his place by people who want him to go out and attend to their sick cattle. He cannot get telephone connection for less than $150 a year. This may be a radical proposition, it may be a socialistic proposition, but it deals with a crying grievance all over this country and that grievance is the attitude of the Bell Telephone Company towards the people. It is manifestly opportune to introduce this subject in connection with the railway law which is before the House, but the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals says that to do something in the interests of the people who transact business with railways is socialistic and confiscatory. I do not agree with him and I do not think hon. gentlemen opposite agree with the attitude of the hon. minister. I have had conversations with a great many of them and I have had letters from a great many people on this subject. I have spent a good deal of time in dealing with this question. In dealing with this question before a special committee not far away from here I have had paid lawyers of the Bell Telephone Company holding me up day after day and not allowing me to make any progress. I may not be able to make any progress here, but there is a higher court in this country, the court of the people. The people are thinking about this condition of affairs and I am going to talk to the people all over the province of Ontario. I am just beginning a career in connection with it. I do not know whether it will amount to much or little, but I am going to the people of Ontario to discuss this question with them. I have discussed it in the press and I have had a certain amount of recognition, but I am going on the stump if there is an
election coming on and I want to meet the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals on the stump in Ontario, and hear him tell the people that legislation dealing with these telephone companies and compelling a railway company to give equal terms to all telephone organizations is bad legislation, is radical legislation, and is disfiguring his Bill. Is not his Bill disfigured by some other things ? I am not disfiguring his Bill.
I am giving him credit for his Bill. I am giving the minister credit that he is attempting for the first time to give a broad general Act dealing with the railway question. I congratulate the Prime Minister and his colleagues on having the courage to bring in a Bill of this kind and I am willing to help them to perfect it.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


William Findlay Maclean: In no way have I tried to block that Bill. I am only trying to help them perfect it in the interests of the people. But, because I am doing that, I am told I am doing something socialistic, and something against public policy. Well, I am not. I tell the Minister of Railways and Canals that if he persists in the attitude he has taken here to-day, all I want is to meet him in the province of Ontario. I want him to ccme to Locust Hill in the township of Markham, in my county where there is a Liberal majority of 300 and if they do not knock that township out of my county-1 can meet the Minister of Railways and Canals in that township and I can knock that 300 Liberal majority to smithereens on that one question alone.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I hope my lion.' friend (Mr. Maclean) will not insist on this challenge until after the session.


William Findlay Maclean: All right ; we will have it then.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: As it is six o'clock, and as I am unable to continue with the Bill after recess, I will move that the committee rise and report progress.


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

[Stage Direction]
The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS moved for leave to introduce Bill (No. 209) respecting certain aid for the extension of the Canadian Northern Railway.
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the first time.
At six o'clock, House took recess.
[Stage Direction]
After Recess.
House resumed at Eight o'clock.

[Stage Direction]
House again in committee cn Bill (No. 131) to incorporate the Marconi Wireless Telegraph Company of Canada, Limited.- Mr. Melsaac.
Mr. WADE  .@: Going back to section 12 I see that the words ' with the approval of the Governor General in Council ' have been added to this clause as it appears in the original Bill. I cannot imagine how these words got in there, because it would be a most extraordinary provision that you would have to get the consent of the Governor General in Council to do what in substance you are incorporated to do. It certainly was not the intention of the committee that these words should lie in the clause, and if I am in order I will move that they be struck out.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: It was at the suggestio'11 of the Minister of Railways that these words were put in. Would it not be well to wait till he comes ?


Mr. WADE.: No, he did not suggest them. I do not know where they came from. I would appeal to the intelligence of the committee whether they should be put in.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: As the section provides for laying wires across streams, it would seem as if the assent of the Governor in Council would be necessary. *


Fletcher Bath Wade: There would be no objection to insert words providing that the company should get leave from the Governor in Council to cross any navigable water ; but it certainly was never the intention that they should have to go to the Governor in Council to get leave to construct any part of their works.
Mi1. SPROULE. What does the Minister of Justice say ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: I say that when a Bill comes here reported from fhe committee. I would be very loth to interfere with it.


Mr. CAMPBELL.: I may say that the Bill -was very carefully considered in the Railway Committee. I remember that there was a- very full discussion of this clause as well as the other clauses.


Mr. HENDERSON.: There seems to be no memberof the committee able to say whether the amendment is or is not what the Railway Committee approved of. I have no reason to doubt that the clerk of the committee was very careful in writing in the amendment; but as there seems to be a


Hon. Mr. BLAIR.: doubt whether it expresses the intention of the committee or not, I think the proper course is to send the Bill back to the Railway Committee, where the question could be settled in ;i few minutes. Very often, when a clause is to be redrafted or an amendment made, it is left with the Chairman of the committee and the Minister of Railways to draft a clause to meet the views of the committee. That is d me for convenience and to save time, and it may be that this clause was drafted in that way. Therefore, I think the safe course is to let the Bill go back to the committee for further consideration.
Motion withdrawn, and Bill reported, read the third time, and passed.


CENTURY LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY.
[Stage Direction]
House in committee on Bill (No. 175) respecting the Century Life Insurance Company.- Mr. Morrison.
On section 1,
Mr. WALTER SCOTT.: I wish, by consent, to propose an amendment to the first clause-an addition of a subcfause in these words :
Provided that the liability of any person whv at the time of the passing of this Aot may be indebted to the company by subscription in the shares of the company or otherwise, shall not be ajfected by this Act, and any such liability shall be held to be the same as if this Act had not been passed.


Peter Macdonald: There is a rule which prevents important amendments being made to private Bills iq the committee of the whole without giving one day's notice.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Let the committee rise, and give notice of the amendment.
Mr. SCOTT moved that the committee rise, report progress, and ask leave to sit again.


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

[Stage Direction]
House in committee oil Bill (No. 170) to incorporate the Canadian Transportation and Storage Company.-Mr. German.
The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: This gives the provisional directors all the powers of permanent directors.


William Findlay Maclean: What Is the object of this company ?


Archibald Campbell: To erect elevators at Port Coiborne and put on a line of boats to carry grain from Port Coiborne to Montreal, and also from the upper lakes down to Port Coiborne. The intention is to transport the products of the North-west down through the St. Lawrence canals to Montreal. It Is impossible for steamers that come down the upper lakes to- pass through the canals, as they draw from eighteen to twenty feet of
water, and the depth of the canals is only fourteen feet. The object is to erect large elevators at Port Colborne and then put on a line of boats of full canal size to carry the grain to Montreal. The power is also taken to construct steamers on the upper lakes to carry the grain to Port Colborne.


William Findlay Maclean: How will this affect the improvements which the Minister of Public Works contemplates making to the harbour at Port Colborne ?


Archibald Campbell: The government, I understand, have deepened Port Colborne harbour to twenty or twenty-two feet, and have built a breakwater to protect the harbour from the storms on the lake. This company is asking for power to erect elevators and put on steamers to carry the grain down to Montreal.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The objectionable part is that you are giving to the provisional directors the power of collecting money, depositing it in bank and taking it out and using it, without being elected. These are powers we never give provisional directors, and I see no reason why we should do so in this case.
The MINISTER OF JUSTICE moved that the committee rise, report progress, and ask leave to sit again.


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

[Stage Direction]
House in committee on Bill (No. 165) to incorporate the Algonquin Lumber and Power Company.-Mr. Gould.
William Findlay Maclean: I would ask the Minister of Justice if it is usual to allow a company to increase its capital stock to any amount, as this company is allowed to do under section 4 ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE (Hon. Charles Fitzpatrick).: I do not see how we could very well object to allowing a trading company to increase their capital stock, if they pay it up and subject themselves to the usual conditions.


William Findlay Maclean: Might it not be required to make application to increase its capital ? A bank, if it wants to increase its capital must file a statement, receive approval and everything of that kind. I do not know that I have ever seen a clause like this go through in any private Bill before.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: An ordinary trading company, such as this, is very different from a bank. And a bank does not need to make application to parliament for increase of its capital-


William Findlay Maclean: But it has to make application under a general Act.
Bill reported ; read the third time, and passed.


SECOND READING.
[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 205) respecting the Western Alberta Railway Company.-Mr. Campbell.


[Stage Direction]
The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS (Hon. Wm. Paterson) moved that the House go into Committee of Supply.
Mr. JABEL ROBINSON (West Elgin).: Before you leave the Chair, -Mr. Speaker, I would like to say a word. 1 was always under the impression, and I think most farmers hold the same view, that parliament was instituted for the purpose of legislating in the interest of the whole people. But we find now that grafters are imposing upon the government, and working the government for their own special interest. The cry comes not only from the Yukon, but from British Columbia. I have received an open letter to-day. No doubt most of the members have received a copy of the same. It is from British Columbia, and is signed by Mr. W. McCraney, ex-M.P. for Halton. I take the liberty of reading part of it to the House.


Mr. HEYD.: Oh, do not ; we know all about it.


Jabel Robinson: It will do kon. members good to hear it:
Moved by positive duty to true Liberal principles. I take the liberty of writing you. The question in my mind and in hundreds more of Liberals here is, has it come to this that the great unchangeable principles of true liberalism as held by Robert Baldwin, Chief Justice Dorion, Joseph Howe. George Brown, Alexander Mackenzie. Oliver Mowat and Wilfrid Laurier, men of the very highest ideals of public and private morality, duty, character, honour, honesty, unselfish, noble, patriotic citizenship, shall be dragged down to low expediency, and here in this constituency become articles of merchandise and for securing spoils for this Vancouver Tammany ring ? The leaders of the ring are Boss Robert Kelly, Robert G. Macpherson, D. G. McDonald. alias McDonnell (see Toronto ' Globe,' September 16, 1898.	' The ringers run to earth.')
Frank Burnett and Norman McLean, who are not Liberals, and never were any more than for what they could scheme out of it. These men are simply opportunists, after railway charters to barter in, mining concessions, Yukon supplies without public tender (as in the past six years)-


Mr. TALBOT.: The hon. gentleman Is reading statements reflecting on the character of a member of this House. I do not think that should he allowed.


Jabel Robinson: If it reflects on the liou. gentleman, I will not rend another word.


Onésiphore Ernest Talbot: I raise the point of order.


Jabel Robinson: I think, Mr. Speaker, I have read enough. You can all read it. If the hon. gentleman takes exception to it-


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: I must call the hon. gentleman's attention to the fact that he is not permitted by the rules of this House to read anything which imputes motives to members of the House.


Jabel Robinson: I do not think there is any member of this House implicated-I hope not.


Onésiphore Ernest Talbot: The name of a member of this House is mentioned in that letter read by the hon. gentleman who is now standing up, and I ask your ruling. It is mentioned several times in the letter.


Jabel Robinson: If the hon. gentleman takes exception to it. I will not read it.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Read it.
Mr. ROBINSON (Elgin)-(reading) :
If this is correct, is the government prepared to consider the interests of Vancouver first, as against a ring of franchise hunters, as in the case of Deadman's Island, which the government were practically giving away on a lease of twenty-five years at $500 per year, when the real value of a twenty years lease of that valuable property is $5,000 a year or more.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I do not think I need read any mere. I do rot wish to load 'Hansard' down with it. Yon can all read it, for I have just learned that every member of the House has got one. I just wish to say this, that we have so many grafters in Canada that it is almost impossible for this government, or any other government, to catch them, and it is time that some steps were taken to see that honesty prevails in this country.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House went into Committee of Supply.
Salaries of officers and inspectors of excise, &c.. to provide for increases depending upon the result of excise examinations, $341,945.62.
Mr. BENNETT.: When an item in reference to excise was up before, a question was raised as to the contract between the department and what is known as the Standard Chemical Company, of Longford, Ont. May I ask the minister if he has the contract now which he promised to lay on the Table ; and, furthermore, has the contract been renewed between the government and the Standard Chemical Company ?


The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE (Hon. M. E. Bernier).: If my hon. friend will wait a few minutes until we reach the item of $05,000 on the same page, I will give every explanation which he may require. Now, coming to this item, there is an increase of $14,516.25. That is made up of increases due to promotion examinations, regular increases, either statutory or increases which are granted annually to the different officers of the department, new appointments to replace officers who have died, been superannuated or removed, and appointments due to increase of business.


Jabel Robinson: There is another item of $055 which is due to granting increases which were not provided for in the estimates for current year. Another item of $200 is due to a change in the character of the office ; and finally, to provide for appointments to replace officers superannuated or dismissed. On the other hand, there are decreases due to-deaths, $2,700; superannuations, $3,200 ; retirements or dismissals, $4,350 ; amount voted that was not granted, $50 ; increases due to change in rank of officers, $5,290 ; total, $15,590, which deducted from $30,100.25, leaves $14,516.25.


Mr. WILSON.: I would ask the minister the name of the excise officer in the town of Napa nee, what his duties are, and what his salary is ?


The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE.: The name of that officer is Mr. Anderson. He is the customs officer, and we pay him five per cent to collect the revenue of the Inland Revenue Department, which gives hi in $250.
air. WILSON. Are they paid quarterly, half-yearly, yearly, or how ?


The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE.: Yearly.
air. REID (Grenville). According to the Civil Service Act, is It necessary for men to pass the Civil Service examination to he appointed excise men in the Inland Revenue Department ?
The ailNISTER OF INLAND REVENUE. Yes, but in the case of deputy collectors, they are not required to pass such examination.
air. REID (Grenville). And then they are entitled to promotion ?
The ailNISTER OF INLAND REVENUE. They are entitled to promotion if they pass the qualifying examination. In my opinion, which, perhaps, is not shared by every lawyer, two examinations are required, first, the preliminary for a certain position, and the qualifying for a higher rank. When an officer has been appointed to a position, if he wants to be promoted, he must pass tlie promotion examination.


Mr. REID (Grenville).: All the officers except the deputy collector must pass an examination ?


The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE.: Yes, that is my opinion, but I must admit at the same time that this was not always the case.


John Dowsley Reid: As I understand the Civil Service Act it requires that collectors, excise men and all other officers must pass this examination ?


The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE.: Yes.


John Dowsley Reid: I would like to know if, since the hon. minister has been in

office, he has made any appointments other than those that would come under this Act? Has he made any appointment to the position of collector of Inland Revenue from others than those who are entitled to promotion V	.


The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE.: There may be one or two exceptions of people having been appointed who were not in the service before. They were appointed collectors because they had passed their qualifying examination. It may have escaped my memory, but I think generally, that I have appointed men who have either passed their qualifying examination or their promotion examination and who were entitled to promotion.
Mr? REII) (Grenville). I do not think the appointment of a man could escape the minister's memory very well, and for this reason : If there is a vacancy in his department and he requires the person selected to fill the position to have a certain qualification, certainly it would be impressed on him if he violated the Civil Service Act by appointing a man who did not possess that qualification. Therefore, I would like the hon. minister to say if he has violated the Civil Service Act ?


The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE.: Not to my knowledge.


John Dowsley Reid: The reason I asked the question was that the hon. minister knows that in my constituency he has kept the position of collector of Inland Revenue open for as I suppose a year or more. The position has not been filled and it has been currently reported that he intended appointing an outside gentleman who has not passed the examination and who has not been in the employ of the government. I would like to ask the hon. minister whether he intends violating the Civil Service Act so far as that is concerned ?


The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE.: I never heard the rumour that a stranger would be brought to Prescott to which place I have no doubt the hon. gentleman refers. The position was kept vacant for twelve months, or perhaps more, but the position was filled a few days ago by the promotion of Mr. Keilty, deputy collector, who has filled that position since the superannuation of the collector.


John Dowsley Reid: Then, the position has been finally filled ? In filling it by the appointment of Mr. Keilty who is a very capable man was it filled in accordance with the Civil Service Act ?


The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE.: Yes. I cannot say that Mr. Keilty had passed the qualifying examination, but he had passed the promotion examination and that would entitle him to the position.


John Dowsley Reid: I have no objection to Mr. Kelty, who is a very able man. In view of the fact that it is necessary that the man appointed to the position of collector of Inland Revenue must have been an officer of the service, the Act could easily be violated by simply appointing a man to the position of deputy and allowing him to act as collector.


The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE.: That is not my opinion.


John Dowsley Reid: In this case the hon. minister has filled the position in this way :	When Mr. Keilty was appointed he
said that he would simply appoint him deputy collector without requiring him to pass an examination of any kind. If a gentleman who is appointed deputy collector is allowed to keep the office open for a year, as in this case, and passes a simple promotion examination he can be appointed collector of the port. In that way, the Act has been violated. I would like to ask the hon. minister if that is not a way of getting around it.


The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE.: No, I think the hon. gentleman is mistaken altogether. First, Mr. Keilty was appointed an exciseman. After having passed the promotion examination as a third class officer he was appointed to the position of deputy collector and from that position to the position of collector.


John Dowsley Reid: The hon. minister knows that in that town if you have a collector you only require one deputy collector, and the hon. minister knows he got around the appointing of an excise man by appointing another deputy collector. Therefore, in that town he has two deputy collectors, and a collector. In that way the hon. minister got around the law in regard to the qualifications necessary for appointing an excise mail. I would like to know if the work done in Prescott calls for the appointment of a second deputy collector ?


The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE.: If there was a violation of the law it was violated the next day after it was passed. It has been the habit of the department since the law was passed to appoint deputy collectors belonging to Class A or Class B and according to the law no examination is required for either one or the other. This practice has been followed both by the present government and its predecessor and therefore there has been no new departure. This has been done since the law was enacted over 20 years ago. This is not the only place where deputy collectors are appointed. We have them in Montreal, Toronto, Windsor, Belleville and many other places ; in fact, this is the only available position for those who have not passed their examination. My own opinion is that this does not

*entitle gentlemen to be promoted to the position of collector unless they have qualified themselves afterwards, either by passing the qualifying examination or the promotion examination.


John Dowsley Reid: What I mean is this. In the town of Prescott, when the position of exciseman became vacant, the Civil Service Act required the minister to appoint a person who had passed the qualifying examination, and in order to get around that he appointed to the position of deputy collector a man who had never passed the civil service examination at all.


The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE.: That is the law.


John Dowsley Reid: I admit that. You can appoint him as deputy collector, but you immediately sent that gentleman out to fill the position of exciseman. That is overriding the Civil Service Act in every shape and form. Is not that a fact ?


The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE.: If it is a fact, then it has been overridden hundreds of times. I have said that an exciseman is sometimes appointed temporarily until the examination takes place. If a man is to be appointed a deputy collector, neither qualifying nor promotion examination is required, but sometimes after they pass their [DOT]examination they prefer to be appointed excisemen and then go up for their promotion [DOT]examination. The only position open to those who have not passed their examination is that of deputy collector. We have done, and all governments have done the same thing, in appointing a man temporarily until the examination takes place.


John Dowsley Reid: I understand all that very well, but the minister is trying to get around the thing in hardly a fair way.


The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE.: Not at all.


John Dowsley Reid: According to the minister's statement the deputy collector should have passed the promotion examination before he became collector. The minister has appointed another deputy collector since, and he therefore has a deputy collector there who has not passed the civil service examination, and who is filling the duties of exciseman.


The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE.: Yes.


John Dowsley Reid: And the minister says that the appointment is made temporarily in order to give him a chance to qualify at the next civil service examination. If the law allows you to appoint a deputy collector who will fill the position of exciseman, then what is the good of the Civil Service Act in that respect ?


Hon. Mr. COSTIGAN.: I think there is a misunderstanding with regard to what the


Hon. Mr. BERNIER.: 
John Dowsley Reid: Judging from the tone of the remarks of the hon. gentleman (Hon. Mr. Costigan) he wishes to leave the impression that I am finding fault with Mr. Iieilty's appointment. I have stated to this House that I consider Mr. Keilty well qualified for the position, and I am glad to see him appointed. But the minister states that the appointment was legally made on account of Mr. Keilty being appointed an exciseman years ago. That may be. The hou. member (Hou. Mr. Costigan) knows the law so thoroughly that I would like him to explain how it is that you can appoint, without examination, a man as deputy collector to fill the position of exciseman, when the law says that an exciseman should pass an examination.


The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE.: I -wish to be perfectly understood, and I think I know something about the law. Mr. Keilty was promoted to the position of deputy collector after having passed the promotion examination. From that position he was raised to the position of collector. The only position in the excise service to which a person can be appointed without examination is that of deputy collector, and it has always been the custom in the department to appoint an exciseman temporarily until he could have an opportunity to pass the examination. There is nothing in the law which prevents a man who has passed his promotion examination, and has been an exciseman, to be appointed a deputy collector arid then a collector, if the government wishes to appoint him. As the bon. member for Victoria (Hon. Mr. Costigan) has explained, there is the qualifying examination fixed by law and there, is the promotion examination governed by the regulations of the department. I do not see how the hon. gentleman (Mr. Reid) can object to the appointment of Mr. Keilty.


John Dowsley Reid: I am not objecting.


The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE.: He was appointed because he was qualified according to the law, having passed, not the qualifying examination, but the promotion examination, which entitled him to a higher rank in the service.


John Dowsley Reid: The hon. gentleman does not seem yet to understand the question I asked, because he has not given me any answer whatever. I asked him if the position of exciseman required certain qualifications, or if candidates for that position had to pass a certain examination. Then I asked why he appointed a man in the town of Prescott who had never passed the civil service examination, and allowed him to act as an exciseman.


The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE.: There could be no objection to the appointment or promotion of Mr. Keilty. There was another man appointed in Prescott, Mr. White; he never passed any examination. He was appointed deputy collector. But when a man is appointed to any position, whatever may be the name of it, whether collector, deputy collector, exciseman, or any other, the duties he has to perform are assigned to him by his superior officer. The fact that a man is an exciseman does not imply that he is to be confined to the duties of an exciseman. The work is distributed by the collector or other superior officer, and the deputy collector may fulfil the duties of an exciseman.


John Dowsley Reid: The hon. minister has now admitted openly that so far as the position of exciseman is concerned, he can appoint any person whether he has passed any examination or not, or whether
he is qualified for the position or not. He can override the Civil Service Act by appointing a deputy collector, and then telling the collector of inland revenue that the deputy collector is to fill the position of excise officer. That is practically the answer the hon. minister has given me. Such being the case, he has certainly been trying to override the Civil Service Act in the case of that appointment in the town of Prescott. I am glad to get his answer so fully and clearly, because it is evident that when it is really the wish of the minister to override the Civil Service Act, he can do so. I know that a great many people have been seeking positions in the department, and when I have told them that the minister could override the Act if he wished, and could appoint any one he chose, they would hardly believe it. But the minister owns that in this case he did get round the Act. AVlien other vacancies occur, I hope he will not overlook the claims of other people by holding up the Civil Service Act as an obstacle, because he knows that for any position in the Inland Revenue Department it is mot necessary for a candidate to pass the Civil Service Act, but that it is simply a dead letter so far as that department is concerned.


The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE.: 1 am glad to have heard the criticism of my hon. friend. It might perhaps be proper to change the law ; but I must tell the hon. gentleman that I have acted in accordance with the law. If I have done wrong, I have not been the first to do so. I have followed the example of my predecessors under the old regime and under the present regime. I have made no new departure in this case. If I had the time I might give a long list of those who have been appointed deputy collectors during the past twenty-five years or since the law was enacted. I have always tried not to violate the law; I have always tried to have those who want to enter the service pass the examination; but perhaps in one or two instances I have done what my predecessors did during the past twenty-five years.


John Dowsley Reid: My hon. friend would hardly, I think, be satisfied to justify his way of conducting the department by referring to his predecessors. I should have thought that when he took charge of the department, his duty would have been to try to live up to the law of the country, even if his predecessors violated it. If his predecessors did wrong, it would be surely more creditable to him to try to do right. I have not the slightest objection to Mr. White personally; he is a very fine young man; but what I want the people from Vancouver to Halifax to know is that the minister has admitted on the floor of the House


Charles Bernhard Heyd: He has not admitted anything.

Mr. ItEID (Grenville). I beg pardon. The hon. minister Las admitted on the floor of the House, that, so far as the Inland Revenue Department is concerned, it is not necessary for any man to pass any examination whatever in order to fill any position in the department. He explains that if he wants to fill any position in his department-exciseman or sorter or anything else-all he has to do is simply to appoint a man a deputy collector and tell the .collector to assign to him the duties of an exciseman. In that way he can override the Civil Service Act and'make it a dead letter. I think this should be thoroughly understood by people from one end of the Dominion to the other, so that when vacancies occur, everybody may know whether it is necessary to pass an examination or not. Am I not right in that ?


The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE.: I think my hon. friend is going a little too far. What he says is a fact, that the position of deputy collector is open under the law, which has been in force for twenty-five years, and through that door, we might fill all the positions in the department; but that is not my fault, it is the law. Of course, if that were unduly taken advantage of, there would be an end of the Civil Service Act, but I am not aware that any undue advantage has been taken of this provision. The law was passed some twenty years ago and under it a certain number of deputy collectors were appointed, but 1 think that the hon. gentleman is gojng too far when he says that the law has been abused. It certainly has not been abused by me. I have always been apxious that those desirous of entering the service should pd"ss the qualifying examination. There was no abuse of the law in Prescott. That is a large division and there were two deputy collectors there. In that town there are. a distillery and a brewery, and when one of the positions became vacant, Mr. White was appointed a deputy collector, without passing any qualifying examination. If the law allows deputy collectors to be appointed without passing any examination, I cannot be blamed, and it is the duty of any member of parliament who objects to this, to move to amend the law.


John Dowsley Reid: The hon. minister admits what I [DOT] have said, namely, that through the appointment of deputy collectors without examination, he can fill every position in the Inland Revenue Department. Am 1 right ?


Mr.   IIBYD@: No, you are not right there.


John Dowsley Reid: I would like to understand if I am right when I say that the- minister could first appoint a man a deputy collector, although he had not passed the qualifying examination, and then that Mr. HEYD.
man could be detailed to fill any other position, whether exciseman or any other.


The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE.: I have already explained that after a man is appointed a deputy collector, his duties are assigned to him'by the collector. If the collector finds that he is qualified to fulfil the duties of accountant, he may give him those duties to fulfil. If he finds that he is competent to fill the position of' exciseman, he can give him that position, but that does not mean that from the moment the position of deputy collector is opeued, every person can be admitted into the service through that door. That has never been done to my knowledge. We have appointed temporary officers pending their examination, and after they have passed their examination, we have made them excisemen, but the duties to be performed by each and every officer are assigned to him by the collector.


John Dowsley Reid: The hon. minister throws the whole responsibility on the collector. When this position of exciseman became vacant in the town of Prescott, it required a man with certain qualifications to fill it. If the man appointed to fill that vacancy had not the necessary qualifications, then the hon. minister should be man enough to take the-responsibility, but he shelters himself behind his collector. But surely, if, when the position of exciseman became vacant in the town of Prescott, the hon. minister appointed a man as deputy collector, and that man was then assigned to the position of exciseman, the responsibility must fall on the hon. gentleman, and he should own up that it is he, and not the collector, who is responsible. The hon. minister says that such has been the law for the last twenty years, and he is not responsible, but he is there to see that the spirit and the intention of the law are carried out, and I believe that if we had the debates in the House when this Civil Service Act was passed, it would show that the understanding was that certain qualifications should be required of an exciseman. A customs officer in charge of a distillery requires certain qualifications. He must have sufficient education to enable him to pass the qualifying examination, and I find it strange that the Auditor General would pay the wages of a man who was appointed to fill the position of exciseman in a distillery, and who had not passed the qualifying examination. Take the case of Mr. White, the hon. minister appointed him a deputy collector and then he was put in the position of exciseman in a distillery or brewery, although he had not passed that qualifying examination which is required of excisemen. Let this practice be followed, and you could fill the Inland Revenue service with men who had not passed the quali-

fying examination, but who had siinp!y been appointed deputy collectors and then assigned to fill other positions.
Excise-travelling expenses, rent3, fuel, stationery. &c., $60,000.


George Taylor: There is an increase of .$5,000 here.


The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE.: This covers travelling expenses, rent, fuel, -stationery, &c., for the entire outside branch of the excise service. The increased sum is necessitated by the opening up of new and the enlarged business of existing licensed manufactories, and additional expenditure for travelling in connection therewith. The expenditure last year was $55,010.


Mr. POPE.: Have there been many cases of prosecution ?


The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE.: No, there have been fewer seizures than in former years. Of course, some people have been caught distilling liquors in contravention of the law, but very few. The number has decreased in recent years, owing to tke fact that we have, not a better, but a somewhat larger, preventive service.


Rufus Henry Pope: Has the hon. gentleman the comparative figures of this year and the year before ?


The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE.: No, I have not them here, but I know that the number is less.
'Stamps for imported and Canadian tobacco, $35,000.


George Taylor: There is an increase there of $3,000.


The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE.: We employ a larger staff, and the business has increased with the cigar and cigarette manufacture. This expenditure is recouped.
To enable the department to supply methylated spirits to manufacturers, the cost of which will be recouped by the manufacturers to whom it is supplied, and to pay for rent, light, power, freight, salaries. &c., $60,000.


William Humphrey Bennett: Has that contract with the Standard Chemical Company been renewed, and, if so, for how long ?


The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE.: 1 explained to the House some time ago how it happened that this contract was made in 1898. In order to give the committee an opportunity to learn everything in connection with the contract, I will give all the explanation that can be obtained in "the records of the department. This sum of $G0,000 is to enable the department to purchase alcohol and wood naphtha for the manufacture of methylated spirits to supply manufacturers, and to pay for rent, light, power, freight, salaries, &c. The amount expended in the last fiscal year was $52,017.01.
The manufacture of methylated spirits was taken over from the bonded manufacturers and carried on by the department as a protection to the revenue on July 1, 1888. It was known that methylated spirits was being used as a substitute for genuine potable spirits, which was objectionable not only from a revenue standpoint, but also ! on the ground of injury to the public health. It was thus deemed necessary to take sole control of this manufacture and to supply it to responsible persons for stated purposes. Two grades were established : No. 1, consisting of about 25 per cent of wood naphtha, and No. 2, consisting of about 50 per cent. Grade No. 1 is supplied to varnish and other manufacturers who have obtained the necessary permit from the department,- and have entered into bond, with sureties in the sum of $2,000, that such spirits shall only be used for the purposes mentioned and on the premises described in their application. The present price of this grade is $1.10 per gallon. It is used in the manufacture of varnish, liquid'glue, leather dressing, stove and shoe polish, &e. Grade No. 2 is supplied to the trade for burning and other purposes without the issue of a permit and without entering into bonds. This is due to the fact that the percentage of wood naphtha is so large that its use for potable purposes would be impossible. The present price is $1.50 per gallon. The reason for the price of the latter being higher than the better grade is the large quantity of wood naphtha used, which costs the department $1.40 per gallon as against 42 cents per gallon paid for alcohol. The quantity of both grades sold during the fiscal year ending June 30, 1902, was 52,835 standard gallons, and the balance of receipts over expenditure amounted to $23,755.47.
During the fiscal years shown below, wood naphtha was procured from the undermentioned firms at prices set opposite each name :
Price
per gallon.
1887-88. The Rathbun Company	$1 50
1887-88. Burcy Chemical Company, U.S.. .. 1 GO
1887-88. Layese & Cayes. France..$1 80 to 1 94
1887- 88. Camus & Co., France.. .. 1 80 to 1 94
1888- 89. The Rathbun Company .. 1 50 and 1 60
1888-89. Burcey Chemical Company,
U.S	1 38 and 1 44
1888-	89. Camus & Co., France.. .. 1 80 to 1 94
1889-	90. The Rathbun	1 60
1889-90. Burcey Chemical Company, U.S.. 1 38
1889-	90. Camus & Co.,	France.. ..$1 80 to 1	941890-	91. The Rathbun	Company	1	601890-	91. Burcey Chemical Company, U.S.. 1 321891-	92. The Rathbun Company	1 601891-	92. Burcey Chemical Company, U.S.. 1 321892-	93. The Rathbun Company	1 601892-	93. Burcey Chemical Company, U.S.. 1 321893-	94. The Ratihbun Company	1 601893-	94. H. C. Collier, U.S	$1 08 to 1 321894-	95. The Rathbun Company	1 601894-	95. H. C. Collier, U.S.. .. 84 cents to 1 031895-	96. The Rathbun	Company	1	601895-96. H. C. Collier,	U.S	1	08
Price
per gallon.
1896-97. Tile Rathbun Company	1 60
1896-	97. H. C. Collier, U.S.. .. 78 cents to 1 OS 1697-98. The Rathbun Company ..$1 20 and 1 60
1897-	98. Standard Chemical Company..	.. 1 201898-	99. The Rathbun Company	1 10
1898-99. Standard Chemical Company.. .. 1 40
1898-	99. H. C. Collier. U.S	 90
1899-	1900. Standard Chemical Company.. .. 1 40
1899-	1900. H. C. Collier, U.S..'	1 08
1900- .01. Standard Chemical Company.. .. 1 40
1901- 02. Standard Chemical Company.. .. 1 40
1902-	03. Standard Chemical Company.. ..140


Samuel Hughes: Wliat is the
American price for these two years ?


The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE.: The last time we bought, in 1806-97, the price ranged from 78 cents to ,$1.08. In 1898-99 a contract was entered 'into with the Rathbun Company and the Standard Chemical Company, at $1.40 per standard gallon. We had to import, because the company were unable to supply the quantity we required. We imported from the United States for 90 cents, duty free per imperial proof gallon, the duty being $2.40 per gallon.


Samuel Hughes: Was the price the minister quoted, 78 cents to $1.08, for the imperial cr the wine gallon ?


The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE.: For the imperial gallon. Since 1898 it was according to contract. Now the customs duty on wood alcohol lias been the same as on the ordinary grain spirits, that is to say, $1.75 in 1886 ; $2 in 1890. $2,124 in 1894. and $2.40 in 1897, since which time there has been no change". If we take the price of wood alcohol in the United States we must add the customs duty which is to be levied thereon. I was asked some time ago to give particulars with regard to the contract entered into between the department and the company. Here is a copy of the contract which was passed between the department and the Standard Chemical Company. I will read the document.


William Humphrey Bennett: Never mind reading it. If the minister will let us see the contract, there is no necessity for reading it.
The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE, (reading.)
The contract was made between the Rathbun Company of Deseronto. in the province of Ontario. a body corporate and politic, of the first part, and the Standard Chemical Company of Toronto, in the said province, a body corporate and politic, of the second part, the said two companies being hereafter referred to together as the said companies ; and Her Majesty the Queen, represented by the Minister of Inland Revenue of Canada of the third part.
Witness, that Her Majesty agrees to purchase from the said company for a period of five years from the 26th day of July, 1S98 all the wood alcohol which may be required during that period by the Department of Inland Revenue of Canada for the methylation of spirits. Th* price to be paid by Her Majesty for such wood Hon. Mr. BERNIER.
alcohol shall he $1.40 per standard gallon, inclusive of packages, f.o.b. cars at Deseronto and Fenelon Falls respectively. The said companies agree with Her Majesty that they or ore of them shall and will from time to time furnish and deliver on oars as above, during tho said period of five years, at and for the said price per standard gallon, such quantities of wood alcohol as are required for the said purpose and as shall be specified in any order or orders signed by the Minister or Commissioner of Inland Revenue or the secretary of the Department of Inland Revenue. The wo-d alcohol so furnished and delivered shall he of a strength and purity to be determined from time to time by the said minister or commissioner, and the said minister or commissioner may refuse the delivery of any supplies which, in their judgment, do not come up to the required standard. It is understood that the wood alcohol required by the department is to be supplied by the said companies in such proportion as may be mutually agreed upon between them., but the said companies are to be jointly liable to Her Majesty for the delivery of all such supplies as may be ordered in the manner aforesaid, and the orders fcr which are sent to either of the said companies. In the event of any supplies ordered not being furnished by the said companies or either of them, or not being up to the required standard, it is agreed that Her Majesty .may purchase the like quantity of wood alcohol elsewhere, and may charge to the said companies the excess of price paid by Her Majesty over and above the price above specified.
This agreement shall cease to be binding upon any of the parties thereto should the government of Canada at any time during said period discontinue the manufacture of methylated spirits.
In witness whereof, &c.
That contract was signed for a period of five years. It will expire on the 26th of [DOT]Tuly next.


William Humphrey Bennett: Does the minister intend to renew the contract 1


The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE.: No, my intention is to buy from the companies which are in a position to supply a good article. We shall purchase wood naphtha the same as we buy alcohol from the distillers, viz., according to the production.


Samuel Hughes: What is the date of that report ?


The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE.: [DOT]Tuiy 26, 1S98. The contract was to run five years.


William Humphrey Bennett: It has taken a long time to answer the very simple question I asked the minister, namely, whether he intended to renew the contract.


The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE.: I said no. The contract was not renewed, and I do not propose to renew it.
Mr, BENNETT. I congratulate the hon. minister on his backbone in not acceding to the wishes of some of the gentlemen who asked him to renew it. Will tenders be called for the supply of methylated spirits

required by the department during the current year ?


The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE.: I do not think there are more than two companies which are in a position to supply wood alcohol, and as I do not propose to go to the United States or elsewhere to buy that article, I propose to buy it from the same companies or any other companies at the current prices in the same way as we buy grain alcohol to mix with the wood alcohol at one time from one distiller and at another time from another distiller, according to the quantity he has to sell.


William Humphrey Bennett: If the kon. minister proposes that we shall be at the mercy of this combine I would suppose that he better try to get this contract renewed at the combination's own price. Is there any private party who permits himself to be at the mercy of any combination in this country ? I think the hon. minister will do well to secure prices from American or European firms, and if this combination which is composed of political friends of lion, gentlemen opposite are not prepared to sell this article at an honest living price, let outsiders have the benefit of the contract. The hon. minister raised the duty on this article from $2 to $2.40 a gallon. It will be a source of great satisfaction to the genera! public to know that the hon. minister, instead of renewing the contract, proposes to place himself within the grasp of this combination. .


The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE.: I think the hon. gentleman has misunderstood me. I do not know that any other company besides the Rathbun people and the Standard Chemical Company are in a position to supply that article.


William Humphrey Bennett: They are one and the same. That came out in the debate a few weeks ago.


The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE.: Yes, they were amalgamated at that time and I think they are still so.


William Humphrey Bennett: That is right.


The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE.: Then there is only one company. I am informed that other concerns propose to manufacture the same article and that is the reason why I do not feel inclined to ask for tenders. What would be the use of asking for tenders when there is now only one concern able to supply the article ?


William Humphrey Bennett: The hon. gentleman will get the benefit of American competition and this would enable him to keep these people within honest prices.


The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE.: I do not think it would be wise to bring in American competition, but if these gentlemen ask too much for this article we can I 169
go to the United States, as we have done in tlie past, or to Germany, France or elsewhere. The Standard Chemical Company, I understand, have already three or four and perhaps five manufactories in the country, three at least in Ontario, one in Quebec, and I am informed that they are going to start another. This company have never exacted more than the current price. If you take the figures running from 1880 to 18SS you will find that the average price ranged from $1.50 to $1.60 per gallon.


William Humphrey Bennett: If the hon. minister will permit me I would inform him that the same company are selling the same article in Ottawa to-day for $1.05 per gallon and the department are paying $1.40 a gallon.


The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE.: That is a good reason why the contract should not be renewed. I have stated that I am not renewing the contract.


Mr. BLAIN.: What quantity was furnished to the government under this contract 1


The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE.: 25,768 gallons proof. The cost was $21,575.53.


Samuel Hughes: How could that be at the rate of $1.40 per gallon ?


The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE.: The figures quoted are proof gallons.


John Dowsley Reid: Who was appointed to fill the vacancy caused by the appointment of Mr. Keilty to be collector at Prescott ?


The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE.: There has been no appointment up to the present.


John Dowsley Reid: When Mr. White was appointed that made two deputy collectors at Prescott. The hon. minister has been trying to carry out the Civil Service Act and the point I wish to make is that he could appoint any one to fill the position of deputy collector and that one or more deputy collectors could be appointed at the same port. According to the Civil Service Act there should be a collector, a deputy collector, and the balance of the officials at a port should be excisemen. In Perth I find that the hon. minister has one collector and six deputy collectors. Therefore, he is filling the position of excisemen with deputy collectors.


The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE.: I think my hon. friend is entirely mistaken. Ail these deputy collectors are not stationed at Perth. They represent other localities in the division. I will give the names of these gentlemen and the stations where they- are located. Mr. H. T. Noonan is the deputy collector at Perth; Mr. Thomas Clarke, deputy collector at Pembroke; Mr. W. E.



Rowan, deputy collector at Arnprior; Mr. W. Egan, deputy collector at Renfrew ; Mr. J. George, deputy collector at Eganville. When we have bonded warehouses In a certain locality In a division we place a deputy collector in charge of it. These gentlemen have not passed their examination and they would not likely do so because of the very small salaries that they are in receipt of. Some of tihese salaries are very small. One receives $187. another $53, and another, $269, &c. We appoint a deputy collector at the head office and at each outside place where we have a bonded warehouse to survey.


John Dowsley Reid: What difference does it make where he is, if he fills the position of exciseman ?


The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE.: He is only the keeper of a warehouse in a certain locality, and that it requires no special qualification.


John Dowsley Reid: There is this man J. A. Wood, at Prescott. Is he a deputy collector ?


The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE.: He is a deputy collector at Brockville. He is the brother of the late Controller of Inland Revenue.


John Dowsley Reid: Is Prescott the only place where you have two or more deputy collectors ?


The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE.: Oh, no. We have deputy collectors in class A and class B at Quebec and Montreal, and in fact in every important town we have several deputy collectors. Some of these officers are filling positions in the country districts in the same division. They have the survey of bonded warehouses and they are deputy collectors for the place they are in.


John Dowsley Reid: Has the minister any deputy collectors who fill the position of excisemen, the same as in the town of Prescott ?


The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE.: The duties assigned to the deputy collector are not necessarily those of an exciseman. If a man is specially qualified, the collector would assign him to the duties of exciseman, and perhaps an exciseman may fill the duties of an accountant, if he is qualified. The title is nothing; the collector selected the best men to perform the work.


John Dowsley Reid: It appears quite plain from what the minister says, that men are appointed as deputy collectors, but are filling the position that excisemen should fill.


Samuel Hughes: Returning to the wood alcohol question. I suppose the minister knows that wood alcohol is now being sold at a much less price than form-Hon. Mr. BERNIER.
erly. The minister is aware that the price in the United States is much lower than here. Does he know tha price in the United States at the present time ?	.


The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE.: The last information I have is that it is $1.08 an imperial gallon.


Samuel Hughes: The minister is well aware that until recent years such by-products of wood alcohol as acetic acid and tar had practically little sale in Canada, owing to the introduction of the national policy these by-products have become more valuable and the price of wood alcohol has been reduced. I understand that these wood alcohol concerns sell the stuff to dealers all over the country at a little over $1 a gallon.


The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE.: I know they are starting new manufactories.


Thomas Inkerman Thomson: Is this wood alcohol produced by any others except the Rathbun Company and the Standard Chemical Company ?


The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE.: Not to my knowledge. Some time ago I received a letter from a Sault Ste. Marie company, stating that at some time in the future they would be able to supply a certain quantity of wood alcohol.


Thomas Inkerman Thomson: When we discussed this matter before, the minister was asked if he would call for public tenders when this contract expired, and now that it is about to expire, I would ask him again if it is his intention to ask for tenders for the supply of this wood alcohol.


The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE.: I have already given a full explanation with regard to that, but I will explain it again. The contract will expire on the 26th July next, and my intention is not to renew the contract. We will buy wood alcohol as we buy the grain alcohol, at the current price.


Thomas Inkerman Thomson: But the question is, will you ask for tenders V


The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE.: No. I could not ask for tenders, and buy from the different producers, because, if one tender was accepted, we would have to buy from that firm only.


Thomas Inkerman Thomson: We want to make it clear that the Minister of Inland Revenue intends to spend $35,000 of the money of the people for wood alcohol without asking for public tenders.


The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE.: If I asked for tenders now, who would tender ?


Thomas Inkerman Thomson: This other firm which the hon. minister speaks of would be in a position to do so.


The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE.: If there are two this year, and there might be four or five next year, I think it would be better to wait until we have a chance of buying the article at the lowest price.


Thomas Inkerman Thomson: 
Thomas Inkerman Thomson: Who came down and asked that question ?


The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE.: I think my hon. friend should be satisfied with my answer. I do not want to name any body who came to my department. If the hon. gentleman should come to my office and ask for something, I would not be bound to state in the House that he had been in my office. But some persons who was connected with that firm came to me, and I said 1 would not renew the contract.


Richard Blain: Might I ask if any quantity of this wood alcohol was imported into the .[DOT]country last year ?


The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE.: No. [DOT]
Salaries of officers, inspectors and assistant inspectors of weights and measures, $61,051.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: There is an increase here of $5,950.


Thomas Walter Scott: Might I ask if this includes the salary of the chief inspector of weights and measures, Mr. Fyfe ?


The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE.: Yes, it is included. The increase is made up as follows :	Chief inspector, James
Fyfe, $2,500 ; salary of assistant inspector at Hamilton, S. W. Robins, '$500 ; at Quebec, C. Knowles, $600 ; at Three Rivers, I. H. Beaulac, to replace Provost, deceased, $500 ; at Winnipeg. J. G. Mager, formerly temporary, put on the permanent list, $600 ; and increases to those who have been in the service either as inspectors or as assistant inspectors, amounting to $1,350 ; less the amount of the salary of Prevost, $700 ; making a total increase of $5,950.


Thomas Walter Scott: I would remind the hon. minister that since the beginning of this session, we had certain discussions about Mr. Fyfe, the chief inspector of weights and measures, in connection witli what several of the members affected, believed to be an insolent reflection cast upon them in a certain report made to the deputy minister 169|
by Mr. Fyfe, about an automatic weighing device in which the grain threshers of Manitoba and the North-west Territories were interested. If I remember aright, I think it was indicated to the minister that those members who believed themselves to be affected by that insolent reference, would expect that at the proper time something in the nature of an apology would be tendered to them by this officer. I beg, therefore, to ask the minister if any steps have been taken by him or by his deputy to procure from Mr. Fyfe such an apology as would be deemed satisfactory to the members affected ?	.


The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE.: I have no doubt that if Mr. Fyfe, who 1 am sure is a gentleman, thought he had insulted any of these gentlemen from the west, he would be ready to retract and apologize. But I have read the remarks, and l think I have heard here remarks which were a great deal more insulting than the language which he used. Still, I will call tile attention of Mr. Fyfe to the matter, and I think that if he finds that he has insulted any members of the House, or even any citizen in Manitoba or the North-west Territories, he will retract.


Thomas Walter Scott: Well, I may remark that it is some five or six weeks since this question was discussed in this House, and the matter was brought to the attention of the minister, and I suppose that Mr. Fyfe's attention must also have been drawn to it ; and I have not yet had any intimation from any person that Mr. Fyfe had in contemplation any manner of apology for this reference. As there may be members here who are not aware of the reference made by this gentleman in an official report to members of this House, it may be well for me to place the matter again before this committee.


Edward Frederick Clarke: How came this statement to be made ?


Thomas Walter Scott: Two years ago, and one year ago, and again this year, members on both sides of the House, from Manitoba and the North-west Territories, spoke of a certain automatic weighing device which tlie grain threshers of the western country have found it absolutely necessary t.o use, but which, up to the time of this session, tiie Department of Inland Revenue had refused to verify. It was, therefore, being used illegally. The result was that the threshers were not able legally to collect tlieir accounts, but had to depend on the honour of the various individuals for whom they did work. The members from Manitoba and the North-west, a year ago were asked to go over to the Department of Inland Revenue to witness a test of this machine. The test was, I may say, absolutely satisfactory to all of us, and we

understood at the time that it was satisfactory to the officers of the department. As a matter of fact the proper officer of the department, whose duty it was to adjudicate on the matter, was satisfied with it, and was willing to verify it; and, according to a document which was in the possession of the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. McCreary) when we were discussing this matter before, it appears that that officer did verify it, or, on his recommendation, it was verified according to law. It was explained by the minister that this officer was simply acting, not having been regularly appointed. Later, another appointment was made, that of Mr. Fyfe, who I understand was brought from Montreal, and he cancelled the recommendation of the gentleman who had been filling the office. The question was brought before the House again this session, by my hon. friend from Lisgar (Mr. Stewart), but in the meantime, there had beeu considerable correspondence going on between the owners of the patent and the officers of the department, and this correspondence was brought down in a return moved for by the hon. member for Lisgar. This return includes a report made by Mr. Fyfe, one of the paragraphs of which I shall read to the House :
The members who are fighting that battle for the ' grain threshing scale ' makers, do not seem to see that they are unknowingly occupying a false position.
Here is an officer of the department who says that members of this House are occupying a false position.
Opposed to their own interests.
Those western members are, in the opinion of this officer, fools. I do not know that we can complain of his opinion, but we can complain of his expressing it officially in a report.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Is he a western man ?


Thomas Walter Scott: No, he is a Montreal man.
Opposed to their own interests and 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 west an inferior machine that is patented and is the exclusive property of one manufacturer.
This is a reflection upon myself and colleagues, which may or may not be true, but at all events it is not the business of any subordinate officer of this department to make any such reflection, and I think that before we vote this salary, we should have the assurance that proper apologies will be made by him.


The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE.: 1 have toid my hon. friend thai there might perhaps be a difference of opinion with regard to the application of the sentence he has just read, but I am convinced .that if Mr. Fyfe is made aware that, in the 'opinion Mr. SCOTT.
of certain members, he has been guilty of a want of courtesy or has expressed an opinion which might be construed by hon. gentlemen, who have a proper regard for their own dignity, as a reflection or an insult, he would be the first to apologize, for I have known Mr. Fyfe many years and have always known him to be a gentleman.


Mr. STEWART.: Has their been an increase to his salary ?


The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE.: No, he was appointed at the maximum, $2,500, and there is no increase.


Duncan Alexander Stewart: His salary should. be decreased until he qualifies himself for the business. He is ignorant of the conditions and requirements of the west.


Mr. BOYD.: The members from Manitoba and the North-west thoroughly understood the position they occupied and what they had to do in order to get relief for the men who were doing $5,000,000 worth of work for which they could not collect a cent; and if we were led into any misunderstanding with ragard to that particular machine, it was the fault of the hon. minister and his officers who invited us to examine it. It was not due to any act on our part, but on the part of the hon. minister himself, and I consider that both the hon. gentleman and his deputy acquiesced in the remarks of Mr. Fyfe when they permitted such a report to pass through their hands and come down to this House. It is all very well for the minister and his deputy to sit here at Ottawa and make no move to enable threshing machine owners to collect the $5,000,000 worth of work above referred to, but when the members from the west endeavoured to have the machine which the minister and his deputy suggested would meet the requirements, tljis is the way in which this officer sees fit toNwefer to them. I claim that these members have a very strong case against this man, and this item should stand until we hear what he has to say with regard to the remarks he has made.


Thomas Walter Scott: Is the hon. minister willing that the item should stand until we have some satisfaction ?	,


The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE.: I have already explained to my hon. friend that if he is convinced that this sentence of Mr. Fyfe conveys an insult, Mr. Fyfe will be the first to retract.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Might I ask the hon. gentleman has an explanation of this statement ever been asked for from Mr. Fyfe ?


The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE.: Never.


Thomas Walter Scott: Is the hon. minister satisfied that the statement should go as it is ?


The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE.: These hon. gentlemen are taking a new de-

parture. When the first discussion took place, a Bill was passed to remedy the evils they complained of, and the law was made in such a way that these gentlemen will be provided with a weighing machine to be attached to the thrashing machine. The difficulty was settled in that way, but now they refuse to pay Mr. Fyfe his salary because he used certain language which they think is a serious reflection on them. Of course if they construe it as insulting, I shall call it to the attention of Mr. Fyfe, and I know that he is too much of a gentleman not to withdraw any statement which might possibly be construed as a reflection where none was intended.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Was any complaint made to the hon. minister before to-day of the language used by Mr. Fyfe ?


The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE.: No, all that I heard was that he had made use of some language which was not very appropriate under the circumstances.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Is this the first complaint made to the hon. gentleman by members of the House of Commons who felt themselves aggrieved ?


Nathaniel Boyd: The remarks were read on the floor of this House, and the hon. minister understood very well that the members from Manitoba and the North-west were aggrieved. He was also shown that if there was any fault, he was the man who was to blame, and the reflection was really cast on him. We brought that to his attention, and the deputy minister understood it well. The whole matter is a piece of wrangling on the part of the officers of his department and he knows it well.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Does the hon. minister propose to take further action ?


The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE.: I propose to call Mr. Fyfe's attention to the sentence complained of and to the remarks [DOT]of the hon. gentlemen who resent the language used, and I have no doubt that he will disclaim any intention to cast any reflection upon anybody and will willingly retract what he said.


Nathaniel Boyd: What does the hon. gentleman himself think ?


The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE.: I have already expressed my opinion. I am confident that Mr. Fyfe had not the remotest idea of conveying the impression which his remark has created and did not imagine that his language would be interpreted as it has been. And I repeat, I have too high an opinion of Mr. Fyfe to think for a moment that he would wittingly insult, without cause or reason, any of those gen-' tlemen from the west. As regards the remark made by one of those hon. gentlemen that Mr. Fyfe was imported from Montreal,
I can assure them that he was selected because he was considered the best man in the whole Dominion for the place, and I have already explained that he was recommended by politicians on both sides of the House, and by manufacturers and very important citizens in the whole Dominion.


Nathaniel Boyd: There was not an officer in the department equal to this gentleman ?


The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE.: I do not know of one.


Nathaniel Boyd: That is a pity.


The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE.: I do not know that I could find one even in Manitoba or the North-west.


Thomas Walter Scott: I raise no objection at all to this gentleman having been brought from Montreal. It is a matter of indifference to me whether he came from Montreal, Halifax, Vancouver, or Hull. I do not say here that these hon. members have been insulted by Mr. Fyfe. This sort of language might very well be used, and I Imagine is very often used, in this House by gentlemen on one side with regard to the other, and no insult is meant, and, I suppose, no insult is taken. But when a subordinate officer in the department takes it upon himself to make remarks like these about members of this House. I think it is insolence on his part, and that is what I complain of. I do not complain of insult: I think this officer has used insolent and impertinent language with regard to members of this House. He undertakes to say that members of this House are not properly representing their constituents ; that they go against the ininterests of their constituents and are trying to force upon them a class of machine that ought not to' be forced upon them. He may be right, and I may be wrorg. He has expressed his opinion. I think I am right. And I may say again, as has already been stated in this House that this device has given satisfaction to both farmers and threshers during all last season and practically during the season before.
I am bound, in view of the position taken by the minister, to go a little further.- and I regret very much to have to do it- and ask this committee to refuse to vote the salary of this officer. I think we should have from Mr. Fyfe a proper apology for the insolence and impertinence of which he has been guilty. I move that this item be reduced by the amount of 82,500 which I understood the minister to say is the salary of this officer. I do not urge as the sole reason for this reduction of the item the impertinence of this officer to members of this House ; hut. if I am right in my opinion. witli regard to this matter, this officer is wrong and has shown that he is not competent to deal with the matters with which he is expected to deal, and is not a proper officer for the minister to retain.


Samuel Hughes: I have glanced over the statement by this officer, and it certainly seems a very serious reflection upon the hon. members ot' tli is House from the North-west. He says :
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.
This gentleman imported from Montreal must have become acquainted with the interest of the North-west far better than have these representatives who have been living there practically all their lives.
They have within reach an article which will meet the requirements of law, which can be made by any manufacturer without royalty, and yet they are trying to force upon the farmer of the North-west

These hon. gentlemen are accused by this officer of attempting to force upon the farmers of the North-west an implement which it is not in their interest to use-
-an inferior machine that is patented and exclusive property of one manufacturer.
Then lie closes :
Shall the government succumb to legalize ail illegally constructed machine, or shall the government make the manufacturer succumb to existing law and order based on well recognized scientific principles ?
I do not know this officer, but, it seems to me that language of this kind towards members of the House should not lie allowed from any officer of the government. I would like to know what is the machine that he says they have within reach and that can be used without royalty ? I fancy that the machine he refers to and that lie recommends is a machine that I heard of in the North-west and that was reported to me by farmers there to have been a teetotal failure. Would the hon. minister tell the committee what machine it is that this officer speaks of ?


The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE.: What machine is it the hon. member (Mr. Hughes, Victoria) refers to ?


Samuel Hughes: This officer has reported:	.
They have within reach an article that will meet the requirements of law, which can be made by any manufacturer without royalty.
What is that machine ?


The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE.: It. is an automatic grain weigher, which is not perfect


Samuel Hughes: A perfect failure.


The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE.: I am not ready to say so. Was it tried in the North-west ?


Thomas Walter Scott: 


Samuel Hughes: I have been told by farmers who have tried it that it did not succeed.


Tile MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE.: Sly information Is that the invention was never tried. But I do not see why this discussion has come up, when we have settled the matter. I must say, in the first place, I have no prejudice against anybody, and I must say also that tlie inventor of the machine under discussion is a member of our staff, the inspector at Winnipeg. The inventor had every opportunity to push forward his machine, this machine1 could not be verified or inspected, according to the report of Mr. Fyfe. It is true that on one occasion Mr. Higraan reported that that machine could be verified. But I liave already stated here that Mr. Higman had no authority to do so. Since then, we have passed a law which will permit the use of any machine which we cannot now inspect, and I do not see why-these hon. gentlemen should any longer complain. There remains the question of insult


Thomas Walter Scott: We are not complaining about the law. We are perfectly satisfied- at least I am-with the legislation which the hon. minister has introduced, for I think it entirely meets the difficulty of the threshers about whom we were talking.


The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE.: I suppose the hon. gentleman (Mr. Scott) will give me credit for having done the best I could to remove the difficulties in the North-west. Now, I have told the hon. gentleman that I will see Mr. Fyfe and bring to his notice the accusation brought against him for the first time here. I do not see why his salary should be entirely cut off. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Scott) himself has suggested that Mr. Fyfe should retract. I will bring tlie matter to his attention. Perhaps he will claim, as many others might claim on reading his language, that there was nothing insulting in the language he used. I am quite sure that if he had been under ihe impression that these gentlemen would be offended, he would not liave used that language.


Thomas Walter Scott: As I have already stated that I do not contend that Mr. Fyfe offered an insult to the members of this House. But I do contend-and I would ask the minister himself what he thinks about it-that this language involves insolence and impertinence when applied by a subordinate officer to members of this House.


The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE.: No such meaning was intended, that is my honest conviction. I know Mr. Fyfe is a gentleman and he would not insult any man knowingly.
Amendment negatived, and item voted.

Adulteration of food and fertilizers, and the administration of the Act respecting fraudulent marking, $30,000.


Mr. BELL.: I would ask the minister to inform the House how many public analysts are now employed in his department, and to give a list of the names of all those analysts throughout the country.


The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE.: We have as public analysts, Mr. Bowman at Halifax, Mr. Valade at Ottawa, Mr. Ellis at Toronto, Mr. Fiset at Quebec, Mr. Ken-rick at Winnipeg, Mr. Harrison at London, Mr. Fagan at Vancouver, and Mr. Donald at Montreal. Mr. McFarlane is the chief analyst in Ottawa.


John William Bell: How many samples of food or other substances have been collected in the course of the past year and submitted to these analysts ?


The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE.: The quantity of articles that were collected during the past year were :	Fertilizer, 100;
Paris green, 157; honey, 100; flavouring extract, 100; canned meats, 100; canned vegetables, 100. Collections were made in the following places :
In Halifax and vicinity :	Commercial
fertilizer, 10; Paris green, 16; honey, 10; flavouring extract, 10; canned meats, 10 , canned vegetables, 10.
Prince Edward Island : Commercial fertilizer. 5; Paris green, 5; honey, 5; flavouring extract, 5; canned meats, 5; canned vegetables, 5.
St. John, N.B. : Commercial fertilizer, 10; Paris green, 16; honey, 10; flavouring extract, 10; canned meats, 10; canned vegetables,
10. ...
St. Hyacinthe :	Commercial fertilizer,
10; Paris green, 16; honey, 10; flavouring extract. 10; canned meats, 10; canned vegetables, 10.	.
Montreal :	Commercial fertilizer,	10;
Paris green, 16; honey, 10; flavouring extract, 10; canned meats, 10; canned vegetables, 10.	. .
Kingston :	Commercial fertilizer, 10 ;
Paris green, 16; honey, 10; flavouring extract. 10; canned meats, 10; canned vegetables, 10.
Toronto, about the same quantities ; Loudon about the same ; Winnipeg about the same. At Calgary the quantity is less, and I will give the figures :	Commercial fertilizer, 5; Paris green, 8; honey, 5; flavouring extract, 5; canned meats, 5; canned vegetables, 5.
British Columbia, the same as Toronto, Kingston and Montreal.


John William Bell: Where have these samples been analysed V


The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE.: The greatest part of them were analysed at the laboratory here.


John William Bell: How many analyses have been
made by public analysts in the course of the |
past year, and what amount of money have they received from the department for their services ?


The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE.: Those analyses are not yet complete, and we cannot say yet how much it will cost.


John William Bell: I am referring to those made by public analysts.


The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE.: The work is not yet complete, and their accounts are not in and they are not paid yet.	.


John William Bell: Have all the public analysts been employed in the course of the past year ?


The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE.: No.


John William Bell: Would the minister give me the names of those who were employed, and how many analyses have been submitted to them ?


The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE.: The articles which have been submitted to the local analysts were :	Halifax :	Commercial fertilizers, 10 ; Paris green, 6 ; at Montreal, 10 and 16 ; at Toronto, 10 and 16 ; at Winnipeg, 10 and 16 ; at British Columbia, 10 and 16 ; and at London, 10 and 16.


John William Bell: Then I understand that nothing but fertilizers and Paris green have been submitted to the public analysts ?


The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE.: Yes, and the balance was analysed here at the laboratory branch.


John William Bell: Have any prosecutions been undertaken in consequence of the results of these analyses ?	.


The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE.: No, not for the past two years, I am informed. We have punished transgressors without having recourse to the courts of law. We impose a certain penalty, which is paid by the parties in default; it is the cost of the" analyses and other expenses incurred by the department.


John William Bell: Does the minister find it easy to retain in his service these public analysts unless they get more employment ? The amount of work coming to them in the course of the past year is very small, therefore, their fees cannot be large. Have any complaints been made, or any difficulty experienced in keeping these professional men in the employment of the department under present conditions ?


The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE.: That matter is under consideration. The law provides that these gentlemen, if they are public analysts, that is to say, if they have passed the required examination, shall be paid $300 a year. For one rea-

son or another-I do not mean those I have named-gentlemen have been appointed or kept in the service notwithstanding the law which says that they must have passed their examination. In some instances we did not know by whom the analyses had been made. I intend to make a careful examination of the position in which we stand, for if we had to face a trial, I do not know what would be the consequences. Moreover, after the analyses have been made by a local analyst, they must be gone over again here in order to ascertain if the work has been properly done. That has the effect of doubling the expenses. I am not ready to say that I would change that system, but X have the matter under consideration.


John William Bell: Did I understand the hon. minister to say that each of these analysts is in receipt of a salary of $300 ?


The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE.: Yes, $300.


John William Bell: Whether he does any work for the department or not ?


The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE.: If he does work he is paid for that besides the $300. The $300 is paid as a retainer.


John William Bell: What is paid to him for each analysis ? If a man analyses this year ten samples of fertilizer and fifteen or sixteen samples of Paris green, what scale of fees null be allowed for that work ?


The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE.: The fee varies from $8 to $10 for each analysis. .


John William Bell: What is the largest sum that any of these analysts has been in receipt of in years past ?


The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE.: Excluding the $300 they have been in receipt of from $1,000 to $1,300 to the best of my recollection. I see that in 1900. Mr. Kendrick, of Winnipeg, received $1,007.25 ; Mr. Edwards, of Montreal, $528 ; Mr. Ellis, of Toronto, $880; Mr. Bowman, of Halifax, $693; Mr. Fiset, of Quebec, $1,072; Mr. Valade,- of Ottawa, $885; Mr. Harrison, of London. $1,052. and Mr. Tureliot. of St. Hyacinthe, $525. On account of the qualifications of some of these analysts certain articles are sent to one rather than to another, and that will explain the difference in the amount earned by each of these gentlemen.


John William Bell: Is there any particular qualification required before a person is appointed an analyst ? Is there any examination to be submitted to by those from whom the selections are made ?


The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE.: They must pass an examination before the board which is selected by the government The members of the board are Dr. Gird-Hon. Mr. BERNIER.
wood, of Montreal; Dr. McGill, of the laboratory here, and Abbe Choquette, of St. Hyacinthe Seminary, who has replaced one of the professors in Ottawa University.


John William Bell: Could the hon. minister give me the amounts received by these gentlemen in the year 1902 ? .


The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE.: Mr. Kenwick, of Winnipeg, received $428 ; Mr. Ellis, of Toronto, $558 ; Mr. Bowman, of Halifax, $634; Mr. Fiset, of Quebec, $560 ; Mr. Valade, of Ottawa, $494 ; Mr. Harrison, of London, $564 ; Mr. Fagan, of Victoria, $492 ; Mr. Turchot, $942, and Mr. Donald, who has been recently appointed,


John William Bell: I thought that in every case they got at least $300 ?


The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE.: Mr. Donald was appointed at the end of the year and he only had a little work to do.


John William Bell: Apparently, from what the hon. minister has said, the cost of this work will be less than it has been in the past. Apparently the work now done by these public analysts is less than it has been. I notice that the vote is $5,000 larger than it was last year and that instead of asking for $25,000 the hon. minister is asking for $30,000.


The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE.: The reason why we are asking more tills year is that we propose to make more analyses than were made a year or two ago. Last year we had barely enough money to meet the expenditure; in fact, we had to stop the collection of articles. We have had representations from some sections of the country asking that analyses of more articles should be made. That is the reason we are asking for this increase of $5,000.


John William Bell: I understand the intention is that these public analysts shall be employed more largely in the course of the coming year, or is it the intention to do more work in the department ?


The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE.: I cannot promise that. Since the law was passed providing for the analysis of food, large cities have provided themselves with laboratories. At the time when the Act was passed there were almost no public analysts, but now the cities of Montreal, Toronto, Winnipeg, Victoria and some others of the large cities have provided themselves with analysts. The trouble we have had is that we have had to collect these samples and send them to a different portion of the country. The effect was to increase the expense because these articles were sent back to Ottawa and analysed a second time. My idea would be to have a more numerous staff at Ottawa so that analyses

which must be made in cities like Toronto or Montreal and which were referred to the analyst here to be analysed a second time would be sent to Ottawa and the staff would do the work. This would obviate the necessity of paying twice for the analysis and we would then be in a position to collect more samples and make more analyses.


John William Bell: In cases in which you make an analysis in Ottawa it would be almost impossible for the department to undertake any prosecution, or in the event of the Department of Justice undertaking any prosecution, it would be almost impossible for the department to send its officers through the different provinces to give testimony and secure conviction. Would that not be a difficulty in case the analyses were to be conducted at the central laboratory at Ottawa ?


The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE.: Our experience is that sometimes we would be afraid to go before the court because we might be in a bad fix on account of the testimony which might be brought forward. I remember one case, in which the man who collected the samples did not remember where he had taken these samples because on the same day he had visited three firms in the same locality and he could not recollect where the samples had been bought. We lost our case. In other cases there might be a difference of opinion in regard to the analysis made in a certain city and the analysis made here. The result would be that if you brought the case before the court one analyst would give one kind of testimony and the other analyst would give another kind of testimony.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: You would not have the chief analyst here giving testimony ?


The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE.: Yes, if there were a difference of opinion.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: If there were an appeal to the 'chief analyst, but not in the prosecution.


The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE.: Yes, if we had to institute a prosecution.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The prosecution would be instituted by the public analyst. If the party complained against desired to appeal he could appeal to the chief analyst here.


The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE.: But if the analysts did not agree ?


Mr. GALLERY.: I wish to ask the minister if he has any inspectors who collect samples of alcoholic liquors with the view of having them analysed ? It would appear from the statement made here, that this very important matter has been entirely neglected by the Inland Revenue Department. The impure liquor which is consumed by, unfortunately, too many of our people, is far more detrimental to them than the impure foods which enter into consumption.


Mr. BICKERDIKE.: What about cigarettes ?


Daniel Gallery: The cigarette question has been disposed of for this year. Has the minister any reports from liquor inspectors, or has he any inspectors to collect samples of liquors for analysis ? I am strongly of the opinion that a great many more of our people are sent to ah early grave through drinking alcoholic liquor, and especially impure liquor, than we have any idea of.


The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE.: I do not care to debate the question of temperance or the question of cigarettes at this stage. I may tell my hon. friend (Mr. Gallery) that we have no special officer for this purpose, but I think we offer to the public every guarantee possible, because the liquor is distilled under the supervision of a competent officer, and it cannot be put on the market until two years has elapsed from the date of its manufacture. If the hon. gentleman called attention to the fact that liquors are imported from the other side in a raw state, where they are not bound to be kept for two years in bond, that would be a different matter.


Daniel Gallery: It is my firm conviction that there is more adulterated liquor sold in Canada than there is pure liquor. Where are the officers to see whether alcoholic liquors are adulterated or not ? This is a very important matter, and one that should receive the attention of the hon. members of this House.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


John William Bell: It is quite evident, from the fact that apparently no liquors were analysed last year, that the remarks of the hon. gentleman from St. Anne's (Mr. Gallery) are very much to the purpose. I think the hon. gentleman is right in suggesting that there is a great deal of adulteration .-of alr coliolic liquors. Some time ago a bulletin was issued by the department giving the results of the analysis of imported and native wines, and if I remember aright at least one half of the articles collected by the officers and analysed were adulterated or defective in some manner. The point raised by the hon. gentleman (Mr. Gallery) is a very important one, and provision should be made to collect samples of liquor and have them examined.


Daniel Gallery: I know, as a matter of fact, that in saloons and hotels throughout Canada liquors are sold that are not fit to be drunk. I believe it is most urgent that the Minister of Inland Revenue should take this matter into his serious consideration.


The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE.: The question is a very important one, and if sufficient money is voted I shall consider the necessity of collecting samples of these liquors and having them analysed.
.Mr. ROSS (Ontario). I approve of the increased expenditure in connection with this branch of the Inland Revenue Department. The trade in canned stuffs is rapidly growing, and it is absolutely necessary that precautions should be taken to insure that canned pickles, meats, and vegetables, and such articles of food, are of pure quality. Indeed, under the circumstances, I think that the increased vote of |5,000 is not sufficient for the purpose. The member from Montreal, St. Anne's (Mr. Gallery), is perfectly right in what he says. If liquors are to be consumed in this country at all, then the people who drink them should know that they are as pure as it is possible to make them. I understood the minister to say that his department was analysing canned vegetables.


The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE.: Yes.


William Ross: What was the result of the analysis of these articles during the past year ?


The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE.: It is not yet completed, but as soon as it is completed the results will be published in a bulleFin.


Daniel Gallery: It would appear that no analysis of liquors has been made by the department. I believe that the minister should put an appropriation in the estimates for this purpose, and I am quite sure that there is not a single member of this House who would object to it.
Some hou. MEMBERS. Hear, hear.


Daniel Gallery: Let the minister take money enough to pay five or six efficient liquor inspectors if necessary. I believe it to be his duty to see that this work is done.


William Findlay Maclean: In European countries, where they derive a large revenue from alcoholic liquors, as we do in Canada, the different governments guarantee the purity of the liquor. In Germany, where they have a large revenue from spirits and beer, the government guarantees to the people the purity of these articles. The time has arrived when we in Canada should see that these alcoholic liquors, from which we receive a large revenue, should be guaranteed ns to their purity. The suggestion of the hon. member from Montreal (Mr. Gallery) is a good one, and later on the minister should have some policy to announce with regard to it. In the United States they are spending a great deal of money to secure the purity of the food products of the people, and I trust that our Minister of Inland Revenue will move in the same line.


Daniel Gallery: 


Thomas Simpson Sproule: How many lines were imposed during the past year for violations of the Act 1


The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE.: There were no law suits taken, but when the parties were found guilty the department exacted a certain fine as well as the expenses of the analysis. The cases were settled out of court.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: How many fines were imposed by the department ?


The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE.: It is not easy to tell that off-hand, because these penalties are exacted by the collectors of the different divisions. I can bring down a statement if my hon. friend wishes.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Then you did not go into the courts at all ?


The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE.: No.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Why not ?


The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE.: Because we are at liberty to settle these cases, provided the party who is found guilty is willing to do so. We can either impose a penalty or go into court.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Were any samples except fertilizers and Paris green taken last year ?


The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE.: Yes. There were 100 samples of fertilizers and 150 samples of Paris green. We had also honey, 100 samples ; flavouring extracts, 100 ; canned meat, 100 ; and canned vegetables, 100. These are now undergoing analysis. We have reports of canned meats and fertilizers, which have been published in the bulletin. The balance remains to be published.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: These are all the articles of food or beverages collected during the past year ?


The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE.: Yes.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: As I read the Act, you could not sustain a prosecution at all. The first clause provides how the samples shall be obtained by the outside analyst. He shall obtain three samples, one of which he shall put up and send to the department, one he shall give to the party handling or selling the goods, and the third he shall retain and examine himself. The prosecution must take place only after the analysis of the outside analyst, not after the analysis of the central analyst ; and if the prosecution is sustained and the party desires to appeal, he appeals to the chief analyst here, and not till then. I venture to say that you could not sustain a prosecution upon an analysis first obtained from the chief analyst. You might patch l up a case and fix a penalty, and the in-

dividual breaking the Jaw might be willing to pay it without going any further ; but otherwise you could not sustain a prosecution. If the procedure as defined in the Act is not followed out by the department ill the regular order, I do not think it could sustain a prosecution. For these reasons I think the Act is violated, and it is practically of little use. It is for this reason, I think, that we have had no prosecutions lately, and very little has been done in the last few years. My attention Was called to this matter some time ago by an article in a paper published in Ottawa, called ' Events.' Whether the outside analysts are competent or not I do not know. I recommended one some years ago who had a certificate of competence from the University of Toronto, which I think was regarded as sufficient. If these analysts are not competent, I presume that their analyses could be attacked in court, and no prosecution based upon them could be maintained. 1 do not think the Act has been carried out according to its intention, and when the work has not been done, I do not see why
85,000	more is required to be spent.


Daniel Gallery: I would like to ask the minister if it is his intention to provide for liquor inspection ? There is more adulterated liquor sold in this country than there is of imported liquor.


The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE.: I do not entirely share the opinion of my hon. friend from Grey with regard to the power of the analysts of the department in a law suit. I think that the Act makes the certificate of any analyst employed by the department as effective in court as that of the chief analyst.
My hon. friend asks why we have instituted no actions. The difficulty is this, that many of those analysts were appointed under a preceding Act and maintained in their positions though they never qualified themselves, and the analyses are made for them by outside people whom we do not know or control, so that the position may become embarrassing if we have to institute a lawsuit.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Does the hon. gentleman mean to say that Dr. Ellis of Toronto is not an analyst 1


The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE.: No, he is known as being well qualified. I do not think I am bound to give the names, but if the hon. gentleman will call at my office I will give him the names of those who are not qualified. We have other instances in which, when the work- of a particular analyst was revised by the chief analyst and his assistant here, there was quite a difference in the two reports. We have power to collect the cost of the analyses and the expenses of collection of samples, and when people are ready to pay
rather than appear before the court, we are glad to settle their eases in that way. I may remark that before I took charge of the department, we expended a large sum of money in lawsuits and in almost every case we lost. I do not know the reason, but when we find parties at fault we punish them by making them pay a fine instead of bringing them before the court. In reply to the hon. member from Montreal (Mr. Gallery), if it is the desire of the House that liquor shall be analysed of course a large vote will be required. I know that there are stills in the country, and in order to put the law in force with regard to those liquors, which come under the provisions of the Adulterated Food and Liquor Act, and make more frequent analyses, we Will of course require a larger sum of money. I shall consider that matter and bring it to the attention of my colleagues.


Daniel Gallery: When has the department analysed any of this liquor ?


The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE.: The last analysis of malt liquor was made in 1897,.of wine in 1S94, and distilled liquors in 1801.


Daniel Gallery: This liquor which the hon. minister speaks of is not sold in the majority of saloons or restaurants. It is not the liquor that the people get to drink. But the liquor that I want analysed is what is sold in the corner saloons and is killing the people by wholesale. I am not speaking of the liquor brewed in the distilleries, which ought to be genuine, but of the liquor made out of chemicals and which is sold wholesale throughout the country.


The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE.: These liquors that were analysed, were collected everywhere, and some of them were adulterated. I cannot say if they were got at the corner stores oi' elsewhere, but they were not taken from the distilleries or breweries.


Daniel Gallery: I would like to know who has control of this business ?


The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE.: The local legislature.	_


Daniel Gallery: Does the hon. minister not think that something should be done ? We are spending millions of dollars to bring strangers into the country, and we are allowing more of our people to go to an early grave through drinking the liquor sold at these places then are carried off by any other cause. This liquor is poisonous and is killing our people wholesale, and it is high time the department should take some steps to put a stop to that traffic.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: How many analysts are employed in the department here ?


The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE.: Two. We have Mr. McGill as assistant and Mr. Lemoine, besides Mr. McFarlane.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Do you propose to appoint any others ?


The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE.: That is under consideration. I would prefer to have a larger staff here and diminish the number in some other places.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: To my mind you are asking $5,000 more than you should. These men are all paid salaries from another source and therefore the expense here would not be increased if you employed them instead of outside men. Why do you require $5,000 more when these men are all paid a salary that covers all their expenses and all they are entitled to ? They do not get anything from the various analyses they make here but their salary is paid from another source.


The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE.: We have to analyse more articles than last year. And besides, when the articles are collected three or four times in the year, the expense of collection and inspection is larger, of course. The expenses of analysis are very large. The chemicals cost a large amount. I think the expenses of analysis are less when the analyses are made here than when they are made elsewhere. Besides we avoid the unnecessary expense of analysing the same thing twice which may sometimes occur. If we ask a further sum of $5,000, it is because last year we expended, within a few dollars, all the money voted, and, because we propose to analyse more articles. Having, if not complaints, demands from different sections of the country, we are bound to collect more articles and have them analysed than was done in the past. I have already explained, that, with regard to some articles we select the analyst Who is best qualified to deal with that article. Of course, the expenses may be the same, but my opinion is that, if we had a larger staff here in Ottawa, the expenses might be reduced, or, at least the work might be performed in an easier way.


George William Fowler: If a sample of some product is sent in for analysis, does the department make a charge ?


The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE.: Yes.


George William Fowler: Why ? Why not make these analysis without charge for the benefit of the people ? Suppose it were suspected that some merchant was selling some article of food that was adulterated. If anybody wanted to have that analysed he would have to pay for it ? Why not have it free ?


The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE.: If the attention of the department is called to some case of suspected adulteration, the Mr. SPROULE.
food inspector collects the article, and the analysis is made without expense to the party.


George William Fowler: But that gives everything away. Would it not be better, when a person suspects adulteration, that he should send a sample to the department and have an analysis made. I do not see any reason why that should not be done. I do not think the people would abuse such a system. The hon. minister had better make a note of the point and consider the desirability of making a change.


The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE.: We must have first the evidence as to how the sample was procured.


George William Fowler: Let the party look after that himself. For instance, suppose the hon. member for Montreal, St. Anne's (Mr. Gallery) suspected that some saloon keeper in his constituency was selling adulterated liquor, and, in the interests of the people in his constituency-if there are any there indulge in alcoholic liquors-he wished to put an end to this adulteration. He would buy a bottle of the liquor and send it to the depart^ ment, but the department would insist upon' a fee of $5. But the hon. gentleman would look after the evidence as to its purchase and send the article in in such a way that the package could be identified. Then an examination should be made, and, if adulteration were established, the hon. gentleman (Mr. Gallery) could set the law in motion.


The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE.: Under such circumstances, we charge nothing. But generally the officers of the department in any branch cannot receive from every section, samples


George William Fowler: How does the department distinguish ?


The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE.: We have our own collectors. When the attention of the department is called to some section of the country where adulteration is suspected to be practiced, we send our food analyst to collect the samples. But we would not take any sample sent by anybody whom we do not know. We do not want to make an analysis for nothing. But if anybody has a complaint, he has only to call at the department or send, and the product will be analysed without charge.


George William Fowler: But the department is making very large extra expense. It would be very much cheaper to allow the person making the complaint to send the suspected article to the department and have it analysed. I do not think the people of the country would use the opportunity of


The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE.: I do not know, but I would be afraid of it.


George William Fowler: I do not think there is the slightest danger. And it would be of

general Interest to the people to Have some cheap and easy method for parties to be able to secure a test of food products. Then there is the question that the hon. member for Montreal, St. Anne's pointed out, and very properly pointed out, I think, in the interest of the people. It would not be necessary to appoint inspectors for the purpose, because any person could obtain samples of the liquors he suspects to be adulterated and send them to the department. The officer could make the analysis, and having satisfied his mind the adulterated liquors were offered for sale, he could, at least, inform the department, and they could send their officers and make an inspection and examination. I would like to ask the hon. minister what revenue he receives from fees for the analysis of food products in the department ?


The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE.: The amount is very small. I will get the exact figures.


Nathaniel Boyd: In what way does the hon. minister consider the provincial authorities responsible for the quality of liquor being sold, and by what means they are supposed to inspect it ?


The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE.: I suppose the hon. gentleman (Mr. Boyd) knows that the provincial authorities have control of the liquor traffic.


Samuel Hughes: Licenses.


The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE.: Yes, but a man who is licensed can sell bad whisky or liquors. The local authorities can refuse a license if they like. But it is an entirely new case; this is the first time to my knowledge that the suggestion of a more rigid inspection of liquor has been brought before the House.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: It was brought up several
times some years ago.


The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE.: But never to my knowledge. I recognize the importance of the subject, and I will take note of what has been stated here to-night. If it is the wish of the House that a more rigid inspection should be made of the liquor sold in the country I, for one, will be ready to comply with that request. Of course, the amount to be voted will be larger if we are going to undertake to analyse any quantity of liquor sent in for inspection. I think my hon. friend (Mr. Fowler) is in error when he says that, if we were to inspect articles free of charge, the opportunity would not be very largely made use of by the people. Almost every day, I receive letters asking for the analysis by the department of samples of water. I should think we would have to1 double our stuff if we analysed all the articles which might be sent under that system.


George William Fowler: I suppose these waters are mineral waters ?


The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE.: Any kind of waters.


George William Fowler: We are discussing now manufactured articles that are exposed for sale, liquors, waters, food. I think it is the duty of the department to examine all these free of charge. I was surprised to hear that a charge was imposed. I thought that this department was organized for the protection of the people, and the wider you make it the more the protection.


The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE.: Then you would have to change the law.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: How is the poor man going to be protected ? A man might not be able to pay $5 to get an analysis. The poorer he is the cheaper goods he has to buy, and the cheaper the goods the more likely they are to be adulterated.. As there are salaried men in the department who make these analyses, and as they are the servants of the public, it seems to me the analysis ought to be made free at the instance of any man bringing samples.


Daniel Gallery: It is evident that if there is a good deal of adulterated liquor sold in this country, it must injuriously affect the revenue. I have been informed by good authority, in fact, I know that in Montreal a good deal of adulterated liquor is sold, liquor that is made out of drugs. It seems to me this is going to interfere with the revenue, and the minister should take the matter up and send inspectors into every saloon, restaurant and hotel to see if liquor is adulterated. That is the only way to get at it. I think every member is willing to vote money to pay for good inspectors to prevent adulteration.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Is it the intention of the government to dispense with the services of these men ? I think the minister gave us the names of nine of them.


The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE.: Not now, the matter is under consideration. As long as the law remains as it is at present, these gentlemen have a right to receive the sum of $300 a year. In the past the amount was less, because we had no money to procure a certain quantity of articles, and we have been waiting till we have an opportunity of collecting four or five samples at the same time. Instead of collecting an article or two in one season and another article or two in another season, we collected, I think, ten on the same tour. Instead of sending the inspector twice or three times on a certain circuit, we wait until half the year is past so as to collect ten samples at one time, in order to reduce expenses.


David Henderson: Could the minister tell us the amount of money collected during the last fiscal year, or in any one year, for infringements of the law ? He says he does not go into court but imposes a penalty. Now, it would be a guide to us as to what

the department is accomplishing by all this expenditure of money, if we could ascertain the number of impurities that have been discovered in the various samples.


The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE.: I cannot say off-hand what the amount is, but I will bring down the figures showing the fines which have been imposed within the last two or three years.


David Henderson: I do not wish to give the minister that trouble, I thought he might perhaps have the figures under his hand.


The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE.: I am informed that all this information is to be found in the bulletin which I have issued. I have here figures showing the number of samples collected in various vears. In 1890 there were 573; 1892, S29; 1S94, 1,021; 1895, 926; 1896, 1,265; 1897, 929; 189S. S79; 1899, 805; 1900, 756; 1901, 881; 1902, 883. In 1876, when the department was organized, the number of samples collected was 180.	[DOT]


George William Fowler: Can the minister give us the figures of last year showing the amount received for samples examined ?


The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE.: Two hundred and eleven dollars.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: That bears out what I said. Last year there were 883 samples collected, the year before 881, the year before 756. and before that 805, 879, 929, 1,265, showing that there were many more samples collected before, when a smaller amount of money was spent than are being collected now. So that it is not in consequence of the additional amount of work done that a larger amount of money is required. There must be some other explanation than that, because the figures which the hon. minister has given indicate that quite plainly. It must be on account of a change in the way of doing the work.


The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE.: I have given the quantity of samples collected from 1887 down. The expenditure for each year corresponding with the years mentioned in the list I have given is as follows
Tear.	Expenditure.
1887	$15,322	581888	
24,817	001889	
23,700	001890	
23,259	001891	
24,726	001892	
23,387	001893	
24,249	001894	*	
24,006 001895	
24,284	001896.. 1	
24,312	001897	
24,008	001898	
24,940	001899	
23,125	001900	
24,577	001901	
24,991	001902	
24,998	00


David Henderson: So that my hon. friend will see that during the period from 1888 to the present time there is not much difference in #ie cost, although the number of samples collected is more numerous. The cost of this analysis, on account of a different process, is a little more. We had to rent a building two years ago, and the rent, instead of being paid by the Department of Public Works, was paid by our department.	*


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Was that paid out of this vote ?


The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE.: Yes. And, of course, we have had the maintenance of that building to provide for.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: You want to change the wording of this vote, or you cannot use the money for that purpose.


The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE.: I caii see no objection, because it forms part of this service.
Minor revenues, Inland Revenue, $1,000.


The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE.: There is a reduction of $1,200 in this item.


Samuel Hughes: I would like to ask the hon. minister if there have been any dismissals or removals or retirements from office of any of the permanent officers in his department, or who have been employed throughout the country ?


The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE.: No dismissals.


Samuel Hughes: Any retirements ?


The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE.: Perhaps one or two have asked for superannuation. There is a gentleman at Prescott, Mr. Dumbville, aged 73 or 74, who has asked for superannuation.


Samuel Hughes: I understand there was a rearrangement of some of the offices in the hon. minister's department, the chief object being to get rid of certain officials, and, I presume, to put others in their places.


The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE.: There has been no change in the inside service for three years.


Samuel Hughes: In the outside service ?


The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE.: No.
Excise-additional amount required for travelling expenses, rent, fuel, stationery, &c., $3,000.


Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).: Why is this additional amount required ?


The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE.: The vote for the current fiscal year was $55,000. At the end of May the whole amount had been expended, and some accounts for that same month remained un-

paid. This amount is required to meet the expenses up to the 1st of July. The vote for the next fiscal year has been increased to $00,000, in order that it shall not be necessary to ask for a supplementary vote. The revenue of the current year will exceed that of last year by over $1,000,000. The revenue from excise last year was $11,282,142. The revenue for the current year is expected to reach $12,250,000. Of course, the expenses are greater, because we have more officers, more surveys and more travelling expenses, and with the additional vote for the current year of $3,000, it will make the total cost $58,000. For next year we are. asking $60,000 in round figures.
To reimburse E. Forrest, cashier of the Montreal Inland Revenue office, for moneys abstracted from his cash drawer and which he was called upon to make good, $85.


Robert Laird Borden: Who abstracted the money ?


The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE.: During the year 1900 and prior thereto the cashier of the Montreal office suffered the purloining of a sum of money from the cash drawer. The original claim was for $135, but the collector, on investigating, was able to establish the fact that this sum named of $85 had been abstracted from the till during the cashier's absence. Of course, the cashier was the victim of the robbery, and he asked, with the consent of parliament, that he should be reimbursed in the sum of $85.


Robert Laird Borden: Was there any investigation made as to the circumstances of the robbery, or any effort made to bring the criminal to justice ?


The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE.: One of the officers was arrested and, guilty or not, he was acquitted by the grand jury. Of course, we dismissed that officer.
To pay assistant inspector M. J. Kelly of Quebec, amount withheld by Inspector Bourassa, $159.90.


The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE.: The services of Mr. Bourassa, the inspector were dispensed with in November, 1896, and some time after, the department was advised that he had not paid the account of his assistant inspector, Mr. Kelly, for June and July, 1896. The department having paid the sum to the inspector, it was unable to pay it again to the assistant inspector. It is thought only just that the department should pay this amount to Mr. Kelly. Mr. Bourassa promised to pay it, provided the government would repay him what he had contributed to the superannuation fund, but as he had been dismissed for withholding the collections of the department, the refund could not be made. The shortage was $643.02, which was subsequently made good. The dismissal was made by Order in Council of October 27tli, 1896. It appears that that assistant inspector was 200 miles below Quebec, and he was asked by the inspector to send his account receipted. He did so, and afterwards it was found that Bourassa had not only used the money of that poor man, but had used the money of the department as well.


Robert Laird Borden: Was this amount recovered from the sureties of Bourassa ?


The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE.: No. The amount of the shortage was paid, but the department did not know then that he had kept Kelly's money.


Robert Laird Borden: Why do you not collect this sum from him ?


The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE.: I would not like to say too much, but I think it would be useless to collect from him. It might be somewhat difficult also, because the assistant inspector was imprudent in having sent the receipt without receiving the mone5r.


Robert Laird Borden: That does not affect the question of the liability of inspector Bourassa in any way. Had he no sureties ?


The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE.: The government had no security for him at the time.


Samuel Hughes: Some oue surely should be responsible to the government for this official.


The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE.: The system is quite different now.


Robert Laird Borden: I cannot quite understand why there should not have been a guarantee bond for Mr. Bourassa up to the time of his quitting the service.


The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE.: In 1894 the Guarantee Company notified the department that they would not be any longer responsible for that man, and the department took no notice of it.


Robert Laird Borden: Why did not the department insist on a further guarantee of some kind ?


The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE.: That was in 1894, and the system has been changed since. The department was notified in 1894 with regard to that particular officer, but the government took no notice of it, and the bond was not in force.


Samuel Hughes: I suppose the minister could produce that notice ?


The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE.: I will do so.
To partially compensate Mr. A. Guay for the loss of a horse while engaged by assistant inspector Mayer on weights and measures business, $30.	'


The MINISTER OP INLAND REVENUE.: In order to keep down expenses tlie inspector at Winnipeg engaged a pair of horses from Mr. Guay, a farmer at St. Boniface, at $2 per day. Mr. Guay's team was used for ten days, the cost being $40 less than livery stable rates. During the journey one horse was attacked with inflammation of the lungs and subsequently died. The horse was driven during the whole journey of ten days. Its sickness was noticed on the fifth day, but was not supposed to be of a serious character. The claim is for half the value of the horse.
Further amount required for salaries of electric light inspectors, $800.


Robert Laird Borden: Why do you require any further amount ?


The MINISTER OP INLAND REVENUE.: To pay for additional appointments that were not provided for in the estimates of the current year. We required an inspector at Three Rivers, and there is an electric plant at Shawinigan Falls, and we appointed a mail at $500. We appointed another man at St. Hyacinthe, where there is an electric company, at a salary of $300.


Robert Laird Borden: What do those electric light inspectors do ?


The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE.: They inspect meters.


Robert Laird Borden: Has the hon. gentleman any record that any of them really has examined a meter ?


Samuel Hughes: Yes. These meters are examined before they are put into the houses. The inspectors do not go from house to house, but go to the electric light plant and examine the meters there.


The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE.: Here is the notice from the guarantee company :
London Guarantee and Accident Company. Policy No. 09246. Amount, $2,000.
Sir.-Please accept notice that the above-mentioned policy of guarantee of this company on the fidelity of Mr. P. E. Bourassa, inspector of weights and measures at Quebec, was cancelled on the 1st day of August, 1894, and that in accordance with the terms of said bond the liability of this company for acts committed by the said Bourassa finally ceased and terminated on that day.


C. D. RICHARDSON,
[Stage Direction]
Manager.
To the Commissioner,
Inland Revenue Department,
Ottawa.
Thomas Simpson Sproule: Was the department served with that notice before Bourassa committed the defalcation ?


The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE.: It was committed afterwards. He was dismissed from the service in 189G. It was not a defalcation, but a breach of faith to that Hon. Mr. BERNIER.
man. The balance owing to the department was paid, but he was no longer under the guarantee bond.


Samuel Hughes: When was the offence committed ?


The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE.: In June and July, 1896. I do not think we could have recovered the amount under the guarantee bond, because under the regulations the assistant inspector need not give a receipt for the salary unless he is paid, and the inspector is not to accept the receipt without giving the money. They were both guilty, but as they were one hundred miles from each other, one had to begin, and the assistant inspector sent the receipt in order to get his money. The receipt was kept, but the money was never sent.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Outside of that, the defalcation was made good to the department ?


The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE.: Yes, $600 odd.


Robert Laird Borden: Why was this claim not paid before, or was it V


The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE.: I understand they have been pressing it for several years.	[DOT]


Samuel Hughes: Is the assistant inspector still in the service ?


The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE.: Yes, and he is a good officer.


Robert Laird Borden: Why was it not paid before ?


The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE.: I do not know. As soon as this came to my knowledge, I thought I had better submit the facts to parliament.


William Humphrey Bennett: Might I ask the minister whether the duties of these electric light inspectors go beyond the inspection of meters ? Have they anything to do with the inspection of machinery or parts of machinery or any part of the electric light plant, and more particularly 'transformers ?
4The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE.
No, they have only to inspect the meters.


William Humphrey Bennett: Well, I think some government in Canada, either the federal or the local, should supervise in some way these electric light plants all over the Dominion. I happened to be concerned in an electric light arbitration last winter, and in the course of the evidence it came out that owing to defective transformers a number of live* had been lost. Owing to defects in the different parts of the electric light plant, deaths have occurred. I think that these were attributable to the fact that the transformers, which regulate the power, had become practically worn out. There was one case in Ottawa where a man went to
5409	JUNE 24, 1903	5410
the stable to turn on the electric light and his dead body was found there. The department should undertake to have a rigid inspection of electric light plants wherever established.


Mr.  C. H.@: For fourteen years and a half we had an inspector of inland revenue in the province of Nova Scotia, but now we have none, and the work is being done by a man from St. John, New Brunswick. I am afraid to say anything about St. John after what I said the other night, but I have reason to believe that he is not very acceptable to those who are in the service of the Inland Revenue Department for the province of Nova Scotia, and a memorial signed by the members from Nova Scotia supporting the government has been sent in asking the hon. minister to provide the necessary sum in the supplemen-taries, so that we may have a proper officer appointed as inspector of Inland Revenue for Nova Scotia. Surely when we had one during fourteen years, we ought to have one now when our population has increased and there is greater necessity for his services.


The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE.: This matter is under consideration.


William Humphrey Bennett: Has the inspection of electric light plants ever been- brought to the hon. gentleman's notice.


The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE.: Never. Under the law, the powers of the inspectors of electric lights are very limited. It would be very important that some inspection should be made of this plant, but this would require the services of a more competent man, a mechanical man of experience, and I do not know if, under the provision of the local law, there is not some inspection of these establishments provided - for. Our inspector of electric lights would have no right to visit the plant.


William Humphrey Bennett: The services of one man would do for the province of Ontario because the inspection of one plant once a year would suffice.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: Would not that come under the Provincial Factory Act V


William Humphrey Bennett: I hardly know whether it would be the duty of the province to see to that or not, but it would be money well spent by the Dominion if a good man were appointed, say in Ontario. I think a good man could be secured at a salary of $1,500, who might go from one town to another and inspect the plant, whether owned by a municipality or a company. We have had three or four deaths in Ontario caused by a live wire. There was one in Ottawa and one in the town of Chesley. Owing to the defects in the transformers, or to their being worn out, so great a volume of power came 170
over the wire that simply to touch it killed a man.


Robert Laird Borden: I am not very familiar with the duties of electric light inspectors, but judging by the description given by the hon. minister they are rather of a nominal character, and the work that should be done by an electric light inspector is not really done at all. I have never yet discovered the actual benefit conferred on the community by means of the services such as are referred to in the item of $800.
I can understand the testing of meters. Every meter is tested before it goes out, but that would surely occupy a very small portion of the year. The hon. minister is asking us to vote $800 for the salaries of two men-one at Three Rivers and one somewhere else.


The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE.: One $500 at Three Rivers, and one $300 at St. Hyacinthe.


Robert Laird Borden: For the purpose of testing meters at these two places. How many hours a year will these gentlemen be employed ?


The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE.: I cannot say exactly. I understand that the same men are generally inspectors of gas and electricity. They inspect the gas meters and test the purity of the gas but they do not inspect electric meters except when called upon either by the company or by the one who uses the meter. They cannot touch the instrument except in the presence of the parties.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The law provides for inspection once a year ?


The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE.: Owing to fires or removals or other accidents, they may be called at any moment to inspect some meters.


Robert Laird Borden: Would it not be wise to have them make an inspection once a year of a certain number of meters at least, selected indifferently. Why is it desirable to restrict their inspection to cases where they are called in, because the majority of people are not aware that they have that right to call upon the services of the inspector.


The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE.: The law requires an inspection every five years.


Robert Laird Borden: Why not make it once a year ?


The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE.: Experience has shown that these meters do not require to be inspected oftener than once in five years. With regard to more frequent inspection, perhaps the users or the company would object. They do not like these instruments to be touched by anyone. When



properly inspected, they are fixed and nobody can touch them except with the consent of both parties, but the services of the inspector might be called upon at any moment on account of fires or removal or other accident so that he must be on the spot and charge a certain amount for the inspection. They have nothing to do with the repairing the meters-that is the affairs of the company. The inspector only waits until his services are called for to examine the meter when the parties disagree.


Robert Laird Borden: Of course, the insulation of wires and the adoption of other methods for the protection of life and property are really more important than the purposes which seem to be served by the Act at present.


The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE.: I admit readily that a more rigid inspection of the installation and of how the wires are fixed would be very important. But, as the law is now, the officers have no duty except to inspect the meters, either gas or electric.


Robert Laird Borden: The fire insurance associations in some cities have what they call an inspection of these electric light installations. But, in some places, at least, I do not think the inspection amounts to anything, I know that in some parts of Nova Scotia with which I am more familiar, electric light installations have been made that are really of a dangerous character. I do not say that that is the case now, but I know that it has been the case in the past and it may be so now for all I know to the contrary. It depends, I suppose, to some extent on the person employed to do the work. It seems to me that it would be very desirable that these officers should be given duties, and they should be capable of performing those duties, more nearly concerning the safety of life and property. We know that in various parts of the Dominion men have been killed as the result of improper insulation of wires or through the proximity of telephone or telegraph wires. A telegraph or telephone wire may get broken and come in contact with an electric light wire, and a person passing along the street coming in contact with that wire may be killed. It does not seem to me that the precautions necessary to avoid accidents of that kind are in any way under the control or subject to the inspection of those officers. These matters are of greater importance than the duties performed by these officers at the present time-looking after meters, and, possibly testing the strength of the electric current. The minister might say whether this subject has been under consideration.


The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE.: The question is a very important one, and I thank the hon. leader of the opposition for having brought it to my attention. I shall carefully examine the law as it stands Hon. Mr. BERNIER.
and see what can be done in the direction he has indicated.


Samuel Hughes: Would not the trouble be that if the government undertook to say when wires were properly placed in a house, if anything resulted prejudicial to the owners, the government would be responsible ?


The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE.: I do not think it would be right to undertake the inspection of every house, but there might be an inspection with regard to plant and material. But at present the only duty assigned to our officers is to test these meters.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I think they go further than that sometimes, and that they ought to do so. One trouble with the electric light is that a plant for so many lights of say, sixteen candle-power is installed, and the light is not really more than eight candle-power. Who is to determine whether they are up to the standard or not ? The inspector does so when he comes around. There may be no meters in connection with the plant. In our plant there are none. The inspector goes to a store where the consumer has refused to accept the statement of the parties supplying the light, claiming that it is not up to the standard and decides that matter. But the trouble is that the inspectors are not always available. They ought to go round every year and be available at any time, for the light may be up to the standard to-night and very defective to-morrow night-it depends on how the dynamo is run and how many volts go through. That cannot be determined by the user of the light and he must depend on somebody else.
Adulteration of food-to pay Mr. J. M. Ferguson. barrister of Montreal, for professional services in connection with the preparation and drafting of amended Act 61 Vic. chapter 24. $100.


The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE.: I suppose my hon friends of the legal profession will have no objection to passing this item. Mr. Ferguson was engaged foh this work in 1898, he having special qualifications in his knowledge of the law with respect to the adulteration of food. He was selected by the minister at that time, Sir Henri Joly de Lotbiniere. I suppose these expenses should have been borne by the Department of Justice. The claim has been a long time pending. Fnally the case was submitted to the department of the Minister of Justice, and that department found that $100 was a fair and reasonable payment for these services. The drafting of the law called for the services of a member of the legal profession.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Why could not a law clerk draft it ?


Robert Laird Borden: I think a great deal too much outside assistance has been procured for such purposes as this.


The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE.: This is the only case in my department.


Robert Laird Borden: I am not speaking of this department alone. We had a reference the other day to the very large sum paid for drafting the Railway Commission Bill now before the House. I am not going to say at present that there is not some justification for going outside occasionally. There may have been circumstances which made it necessary to do so in the case of the Railway Commission Bill. But I think there are men in the Department of Justice who are just as capable of drafting this Bill as the gentleman in Montreal, who was selected to do this work. We have a Department of Justice, with a very large staff, and I would like to know why a small Bill of this kind should not be sent to the Department of Justice, and prepared there instead of being sent to Montreal. There are officers in the Inland Revenue Department who know what is wanted, surely, and there is a properly organized Department of Justice with a large staff, and these gentlemen are left to employ their time as best they can, while the drafting of this measure is sent to Montreal. I regard a course of that kind and absolutely unjustifiable. I believe that if we had an inquiry made of the Deputy Minister of Justice and his assistants, not one of them would dare to say that this Bill could not have been prepared in the Department of Justice without overworking any man in that department. Under these circumstances I absolutely protest against work of this kind being sent out, when we have not only a Department of Justice, but a law clerk, and some times two or three in nearly every department of this government.


The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE.: We have none in our department.


Robert Laird Borden: In nearly every department. I think there are two in the Railway Department. I am not finding any fault with that. But I am finding fault, when we have this enormous staff of lawyers in the public service, with paying men in the legal profession for work which could just as well have been done by the regular employees of this government.
Some resolutions reported.


ADJOURNMENT-INQUIRIES FOR RETURNS.
[Stage Direction]
The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE (Hon. Sydney Fisher), moved the adjournment of the House.
Robert Laird Borden: 
The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: We will take up some minor Bills first, then the Railway Bill, and after that, supply for the Department of Agriculture.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House adjourned at 12.45 a.m., Thursday.
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, June 25, 1903.