1903-06-19

[Stage Direction]
The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS (Hon. A. G. Blair) moved for leave to lay upon the Table of the House copies of certain estimates of the engineers respecting the cost of the Canadian Northern Railway.
Motion agreed to.
Mr. CLARKE moved that the said estimates be printed and distributed forthwith for the information of this House, notwithstanding rule 94 to the contrary.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
House in committee on the following proposed resolution
Resolved, that it is expedient to pass an Act to prevent the improper marking of butter ; to prevent the manufacture or sale of renovated, adulterated, or process butter, or of oleomargarine, butterine, or other substitute for butter, manufactured wholly or in part from any fat other than that of milk or cream ; providing for the examination of stock or packages ; and providing that one-half of the pecuniary penalties for contraventions of the Act shall he payable to the informant.-Minister of Agriculture.
Mr. TAYLOR.: Will the hon. minister kindly explain ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE. (Hon. Sidney Fisher).: Mr. Speaker, this matter comes forward in the shape of a resolution as it deals with trade. The resolution when passed by the House, will be the foundation for the introduction of a Bill. I have in my hand a copy of the proposed Bill which covers mainly these points.

First of all, forbidding the manufacture of wliat is known as process butter. Joined with that is the reiteration of the already well known statute of this country forbidding the manufacture of oleomargarine, butteriue or substitutes for butter. In addition the Bill provides for the proper marking of butter packages so that only butter shall be marked as creamery butter that is really made in a creamery or factory and that any butter made in a private way shall not be marked as creamery butter. Again, the Bill deals with the matter of the adulteration of butter and provides that any butter that contains more than sixteen per cent of water shall be considered adulterated. There is also a provision forbidding the mixture of any acid, alkali or chemical for the purpose of causing the butter to absorb water. It also goes on to provide in general terms for penalties to be imposed upon anybody who offers for sale these things which are thus forbidden and for people who contravene the provisions of the law in regard to marking. I may say, Mr. Chairman, that the necessity for the adoption of some sucli law as this is due to the fact that quite recently, I think, within about a year or so, there has arisen a new condition of affairs in this country in regard to the manufacture of process butter especially. For a long time there has been a manufacture in the United States of process butter, but about a year and a half ago, or perhaps two years ago, the Congress of the United States passed stringent laws regulating and making very difficult the manufacture of this process butter. The result seems to be that certain people who have been doing this in the United States have thought that they could see an opportunity in Canada of transferring their business to this country and certain efforts on the part of certain people to do this have been brought to my attention and to the attention of the officers of the department. We considered that the introduction of this manufacture into Canada would be a very serious hurt and detriment to the dairy interests of the country and to the trade in butter in Canada, which is advancing in a satisfactory way. We wished to obviate the difficulties that have arisen in the United States and by passing a law of this kind at the present time, when this industry is in its infancy, when it is, in fact, hardly established in the country at all, I think we are adopting the best means of securing our great dairy interests from what, if it is allowed to proceed and increase and multiply in the country, will be very difficult to deal with and will be a very serious hurt and damage to these dairy interests.


Mr. BELL.: What is process butter ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Process butter, in general terms is made according to the foilow'ing system. Cheap ! butter is taken, melted down and dealt with i
under a certain process of manufacture, it is then chilled so as to become granular and then churned up with buttermilk and skimmed milk and packed in the ordinary way. At first sight this may appear to be a perfectly ;inn;ocent procedure, but the fact is, which is well known and established, that this butter, while it may be fairly good in appearance and fairly good in taste when first made, cannot maintain its quality for any length of time. If it were to be put on the market in various localities in our own country and used up at once there might possibly be no great hurt provided it was sold for what it was, but, unfortunately if it is to be kept or mixed up in any way with properly made butter it will be marked with the name of Canada, it will be sent abroad, before it reached any foreign market it would appear very badly and create a bad impression of our Canadian butter, practically in the same way as oleomargarine, or butterine, or any substitute for butter would do.


Mr. SPROULE.: I would like to ask the hon. minister why he requires this Bill for that purpose ? Because, as I understand, the Bill which prohibits the manufacture, sale, or importation of oleomargarine, butterine, or other substitutes for butter would cover the manufacture and sale of process butter.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Under the interpretation of the law we believe that this process butter could not be called a substitute for butter. It might come under the actual meaning of the word ' butter.' That difficulty has occurred in the United States and they have had to provide special legislation there dealing with it. The history of dairy legislation in the United States may be a warning to us and a guide as to what we have to do here. In the United States they did not prohibit the manufacture of oleomargarine and butterine, and no doubt that fact has contributed very largely to the discredit which the foreign market has always attached to the dairy products of the United States in comparison with the high reputation which Canadian dairy products have had. I have no hesitation in saying most emphatically, that the course of the United States people in permitting various substitutes for butter to be manufactured in that country, and their system of tinkering with their dairy products, has tended materially to keep down the reputation of these products in the markets of the world. The action of this parliament long ago in prohibiting the manufacture, importation, and sale of oleomargarine has helped materially to keep up the reputation of our butter in foreign markets as well as at home. This is a new thing that has come up in connection with the butter business of this country, and it is wise for us to nip it in the bud before it has assumed proportions that will hurt our trade. The vested interests in the United

States have become so great that they do not seem to be able to prohibit the manufacture and sale of adulterated butter as we have done, but they have provided a licensing system which no doubt will protect the public to some extent from being deceived. We could do that, but I think our best course is to forbid the manufacture of this butter at once. If we allow it to go on for even another year we will find established industries here, and we may be confronted with the same difficulties that confront our neighbours on the other side of the line. It is I believe the part of wisdom and prudence to take the thing in hand at the very beginning and to proceed against it drastically. We have been very fortunate in Canada in the general purity, and I may call it, the immaculate reputation of our dairy products. Filled cheese and imitation butter are unknown in Canada while they are common in the United States, and the result is that our dairy products have a higher reputation than theirs. Let us take immediate steps to conserve the interests of our dairy products and to ensure that this process butter is not allowed to be manufactured here so as to hurt them. This is the main feature of the Bill, and the other details of it are to secure a proper marking of butter. We have dairy butter and creamery butter. Coming from certain people dairy butter is quite good, but at the same time the creamery butter lias a standing on the market which dairy butter has not. I am sorry to say we have a number of complaints that dairy butter is being sold as creamery, with the risk of hurting the reputation of creamery butter. Let me say most emphatically that there is a large amount of dairy butter which is just as good as creamery butter, but under the heading of dairy butter there is a large quantity of butter accumulated at country stores in rolls and small packages which is afterwards re-packed and sold. Under this Bill that could not come under the definition of creamery butter.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What is this process butter made of ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: It is made of butter, but the process through which it goes is such that dairy experts find that it deteriorates very rapidly ns the process destroys certain characteristics of the butter fat globules in the butter. I have given careful consideration to this resolution, and I have introduced it on the representation of those who are interested in dairying and on the best export information which I can get in the country.


George Taylor: It takes a long while to get anything through the head of the Minister of Agriculture. If he will turn to 1 Hansard ' of 1886 he will find that I then moved the following resolution :


Hon. Mr. FISHER.: That it is expedient to bring in a Bill to regulate the manufacture and sale of oleomargarine. butterine or other substitutes for butter.
That resolution was broad enough to take in this new idea that the minister has got into his head about process butter. I spoke strongly in support of my motion and I produced statistics to show that oleomargarine was then being manufactured largely in the United States, was being imported into Canada and that a factory was about being started for the manufacture of it in Canada. After this motion, the then Conservative government came down with a resolution to prohibit the importation, manufacture, and sale into Canada of oleomargarine. The present Minister of Agriculture then rose in his place to oppose the passage of my resolution and he spoke as follows :
But, Mr. Speaker, anxious as I am to see the agricultural interests, and especially the dairy interests of the country carefully guarded-and I say this as representing one of the greatest dairy counties in this Dominion, the county, according to the last census, which made the greatest amount of butter of any county in the Dominion-still I do not wish to see the dairy interest guarded at the expense of any other interest in the Dominion. If any person chooses to put upon the market an article which is not hurtful in itself, and which is properly stamped and shown to be such an article, if it does compete with the producers of butter it will be merely an extra stimulus to them to make a better article with which this spurious article cannot compete. But I do not believe it would be right or wise for this parliament absolutely to prevent all the people in this country from producing an article which in itself is not hurtful, and which, at the same time would be stamped so as to show its true nature.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The scales have fallen off his eyes.


George Taylor: When did the hon. gentleman (Hon. Mr. Fisher) get new light ? I proved then that this oleomargarine which Hon. Mr. Fisher would not prohibit from coming into Canada was made out of products of dead hogs brought into the Chicago market, and some of which were dead and buried before they started to make oleomargarine out of them. Yet the hon. gentleman at that time was willing to allow oleomargarine made in these Chicago factories to be brought in here and sold, so long as it was sold as oleomargarine, to the poorer classes of this country in competition with our butter. He not only voted against the resolution I then introduced, but he gave it all the opposition he could. Later, the government came down with a proposition in the tariff prohibiting the importation of oleomargarine into Canada. And now, seventeen years afterwards, the hon. gentleman wakes up to the fact that it would be injurious to the dair$ interests of Canada to have oleomargarine made in the country. There is no necessity for this Bill, as oleomargarine is prohibited to-day. The hon. gentleman only introduces it in

order that he may go to the farmers and claim credit for having introduced and passed a Bill prohibiting the importation and manufacture of oleomargarine, butterine, or other substitute for butter. Surely the hon. gentleman does not want to take up the time of the House with a Bill for which there is no necessity, because the laws put .on the statute-book by the Conservative government, who had the true interests of the farmers at heart, amply meet the case. Surely the hon. gentleman does not expect in this way to make amends for the speech which I have quoted, and which was properly understood by the farmers of his county, because they left him at home in the next election after he had made it. It is nothing but a bit of buncombe, this legislation which the hon. gentleman is introducing after seventeen years of opposition to the Bill which I introduced, having the same object.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: It seems to me that this Bill is entirely unnecessary, because it is the same as the old Act, which is as follows :
No oleomargarine, butterine, or other substitute for butter, manufactured from any animal substance other than milk, shall be manufactured in Canada, or sold therein, and every person who contravenes the provisions cf this Act in any manner whatsoever, shall incur a penalty not exceeding $400 and not less than $200, and in default of payment shall be liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding twelve months and not less than three months.
Where is the difference between the two Acts ? There is simply none, so far as I can see, beyond the fact that the hon. minister attaches the name of process butter. If this is a substitute for butter which is destroying the dairy products of the farmers, it can be attached under the old law as a substitute for butter. If It is some harmless preparation which is made out of butter-fat, I do not think that even the Act the minister is passing would attach it. It is only a change of name, and you cannot sell an adulterated article under a changed name any more than under the original name ; it can be stopped under the Adulteration of Foods Act. I am afraid the hon. gentleman is introducing this measure for the purpose of leaving on record the fact that the present Minister of Agriculture has stopped the importation and sale of these spurious articles. He opposed the old Act, but now it seems that in order to make amends for his shortcomings of the past, and to leave on record something that he can hold up as evidence of the great interest he takes in the farmers of the country, he introduces this Bill. In his speech in opposition to the old Act, the hon. gentleman, referring to the proposition that an excise duty and a customs duty of 10 cents a pound should be placed on these spurious articles, said :
But if these articles are stamped, so that the public know what they are buying, 159
aDd if the oleomargarine or the butterine are composed of materials which are not injurious to the health of the consumer, I do not see why the production of these articles should be forbidden in this country.
He admits that this process butter is not injurious to the health of the consumer, and yet to-day he is endeavouring to pass a law to prohibit it. He went on to say :
And if it does work any inconvenience to the dairymen of the country, their true remedy would be to manufacture a still better article of butter.
Is that not what they are doing to-day ? The hon. gentleman says that this article does not keep like prime dairy butter, therefore, he is going to prohibit it; but a few years ago it would only stimulate the farmers to manufacture a. still better article of butter.
Let the dairymen of the country see to it that they make the very best butter possible, and no butterine or oleomargarine can compete with that article. As a matter of fact, we know that in the United States, where these articles have been very largely put upon the market, they have competed with and injured the sale of lower grades of butter, but I think they have not at all interfered with the sale of the higher classes of butter.
Is that the hon. gentleman's experience to-day ? He admits that the article is not injurious to health, that it is made out of butter ; but it has not stimulated the farmers to such an extent sis to prevent it interfering with the sale of the higher grades of butter.
That being the case, and seeing that the government have proposed this resolution, I am not quite prepared, without further explanation at all events, to support the motion of the hon. gentleman. However, it might be well for us to go into committee and see the details of this Bill.
That is what the hon. member thought then; but to-day, as Minister of Agriculture, he has evidently acquired additional light. But I respectfully submit that if the article which he seeks to prohibit the importation, manufacture, and sale of in Canada, is either a substitute for butter or is injurious to health, it can be prohibited under the present law.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I *ill just read to the hon. gentleman the present law, and point out to him how it is that this article cannot be prohibited under it.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I have just read the present law.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: The hon. gentleman does not seem to have read it understanding^.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I read it and left others to draw their own understanding from it.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I want to attempt to drive into the hon. gentleman's head the exact meaning of the words :



No oleomargarine, butterine or ether substitute for butter manufactured from any animal substance other than milk-
The hon. gentleman read the words of the law a few minutes ago, but did not seem to attach any significance to certain of those words which I shall repeat: ' or other substitute for butter manufactured from any animal substance other than milk.' This process butter is not made from other animal substance than milk, and therefore does not come under this provision of the Act of 1886, and the people who are making it cannot be prosecuted, and we require a new Act in order to be able to deal with this particular matter.


George Taylor: Why will not the hon. gentleman not simply introduce an Act to amend the old Act, as is done in all other legislation ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Because, in the first place, the new Act will cover a great deal more than the old Act ; and, in the second place, I wish to deal with other matters besides this particular section of the old Act. Therefore, I prefer to Introduce a new Bill providing not only a law, but machinery to enforce the law, which the old A'ct did not provide at all. The hon. gentleman alluded to some ancient history, and I would not refer to it except to correct a misstatement. He said that in consequence of certain words of mine, which he quoted, I was left at home in the next election. The hon. gentleman's memory is just as much at fault as that of the hon. member for Leeds. It was in the session of 1886 that I made the remarks cited. In 1887 there was an election, in which the friends of the hon. gentlemen opposite tried to impugn my position on this question.


Mr. COCHRANE.: Gracious me 1


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I beg the hon. gentleman's pardon.


Matthew Henry Cochrane: Oh, go on.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I am glad the hon. gentleman has sufficient grace to be ashamed of his interruption.


Matthew Henry Cochrane: I am ashamed to have to listen to such nonsense as the hon. gentleman is speaking. By what right does he take up the time of the House in making statements about his own election which are of no public interest ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I am quite ready to answer questions put by the hon gentleman, but would prefer he did not make a speech in the middle of my remarks.


Matthew Henry Cochrane: Do you call that a speech ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: In the election of 1887 the chief point made Hon. Mr. FISHER.
against me by friends of hon. gentlemen opposite was what I had said on a particular occasion. But the only effect it had was to increase my majority from 160, in 1882, to over 350. At the next general election this question was not discussed. It never came up in any way whatever, and I was defeated by the casting vote of the returning officer on a totally different question. The question now before the House is the importance of this legislation, and I have given my reasons for deeming it to be necessary. The only reason to the contrary is that advanced by the hon. member for Grey (Mr. Sproule), namely, that the old Act was sufficient. But I have fairly proved that the old Act would not meet this case.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The old Act says : ' If it is an article used as a substitute for butter.' Does that not cover the case ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: The words are ' other substitute for butter manufactured from animal substance other than milk.'


George Taylor: It is none the less a substitute for butter. The next question is whether it is injurious to health.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: That does not come in.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Does the hon. minister think that it is injurious to health ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I cannot say. That would depend a good deal on the condition in which it arrived after manufacture. If it became rancid and stagnant, it would be injurious to health, but not if eaten when fresh.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Butter, if rancid, would be equally injurious to health. If, in its normal condition, it is not injurious to health, the hon. minister must be taking a different line from that which he took in 1886, because he then said that no article which was not injurious to health should be prohibited. He said that such an article would not interfere with dairymen, but would stimulate them to make a prime article which would command a sale. My hon. friend says that there is no machinery to Enforce the law in the old Act. Well, we know, as a matter of fact, that those who contemplated building ceased their operations when this law came into force. They were prevented by this law from beginning the manufacture of the very article which it was intended to prohibit. It also stopped the importation, and it would not have had that effect were the Act not supposed to be effective for the punishment of thet wrong-doer, whoever he might be. What machinery does the hon. gentleman propose that may not be invoked to-day for the enforcement of the law, should the law be violated ?


Mr. REID (Grenville).: The great desire of the hon. minister (Hon. Mr. Fisher) to do

something for the farmers by protecting the butter industry seems to lead him a little too far in dealing with dairy-made butter. I understand from what he said that any butter, whether dairy-made or creamery-made that contains over 16 per cent of water, cannot be sold without the party making himself liable to a heavy penalty. How can the ordinary farmer's wife know to a certainty exactly what percentage of water is in the butter ? But, if, in packing there should happen to be a fraction over 16 percent of water she brings down upon herself the punishment provided in these resolutions. I am as anxious as the hon. minister to prevent any inferior butter being placed on the market to interfere with our dairy interest, but I think it is going a little^ too far to include dairy butter, a great deal of which is just as good as any creamery butter, within the scope of this measure in this fashion. The farmer's wife has no desire to do anything that is not right, but a mere mistake of a fraction of a percentage would make her liable to the heavy penalties here provided. It seems to me that that is going too far.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS (Hon. William Paterson).: I think it is a great pity there should be any objection to this Bill. The very fact of its being introduced shows that there is a necessity for it. I was surprised to find an hon. gentleman who has been so long connected with the Committee on Agriculture as the hon. member for East Grey (Mr. Sproule) opposing a Bill that is intended to protect our great dairy industry. The question is not, as some hon. gentlemen seem to think, what position the Minister of Agriculture may have taken years ago upon another measure, but what is the position taken by the hon. gentleman (Mr. Sproule) now when a Bill is being introduced to preserve the great dairy industry. The bon. gentleman should not try to defeat the object of the Bill-


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I would like to ask the hon. minister who is trying to do that V


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: The hon. member for East Grey.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Not at all.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Sproule) argues that the present law covers all this, and there is no necessity for this measure.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I think it does.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: If that view prevails, we shall not get this new law passed, and the manufacture of this pro-cesss butter will go on in this country. The question has been before my department as well as before the Department of Agriculture, and it has required very careful consideration. We have come to the conclusion that the present law will 'not 1594
prohibit this article, which it is intended to manufacture in this country. The way to stop it is to nip it in the bud, before the business is established and a vested interest is created with valuable machinery. We find objection made to this Bill, and it is argued that, as the Minister of Agriculture made certain remarks upon another measure introduced some time ago, therefore, this Bill must not be introduced. That is not a proper course to take. If I wished to refer to old events, however, I might point out that the Bill introduced by the hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Taylor) was a Bill to encourage the production of oleomargarine. The Bill proposed by that hon. gentleman placed a customs duty upon oleomargarine imported, and an excise duty upon that produced in the country ; and, as the excise duty was lower than the customs duty, the general effect of the Bill was actually to afford protection to the manufacture of oleomargarine in Canada. I moved in amendment that the manufacture and sale of this material be absolutely prohibited. That prevailed with the government, and the law was framed in that way. The resolutions before us have for their object the prohibition or manufacture of another article which we consider injurious to the dairying interest, but which is not covered by the existing law.


Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).: I wish to say a word in justice to my hon. friend from East Grey (Mr. Sproule). The hon. Minister of Customs (Hon. Mr. Paterson) has not done justice to my hon. friend. A certain object is to be attained, and my hon. friend argues that if the existing law were enforced that object could be obtained now. He is entitled to his opinion on that subject, and it is quite unfair for the Minister of Customs to charge him with endeavouring to defeat the object of this measure, which he says can be attained, and should be attained, without a change of law. The hon. minister has given a somewhat terse description of the object the Minister of Agriculture has in mind when he says that the proposition of the Bill is to nip this bad butter in the bud. I am sure the process could not be stated more effectively, though I do not know exactly what it is. I do not know whether my hon. friend the Minister of Agriculture would be inclined to give his proposed Bill the heading suggested by the Minister of Customs, and bring it before us as a Bill intituled ' An Act to nip oleomargarine in the bud.'


Mr. HENDERSON.: After the scolding that the Minister of Customs (Hon. Mr. Paterson) has given to one hon. gentleman, I think it well, before saying anything with reference to the resolution before the committee to give the Minister of Agriculture the most positive assurance that I have no desire whatever to obstruct the passage of resolutions which will help to improve in any way the character or promote the

sale of butter in the country, I think, however, the resolution ought to be explained a little more fully before the Bill is introduced. I notice that the resolution says, ' That it is expedient to pass an Act to prevent the improper marking of butter.' That would seem to apply to all butter. But, if every package of butter made in this country is to be stamped or marked in some particular way to indicate its quality, that would be a most serious interference with trade, something which it would be practically impossible to carry out.


The MINISTER OP AGRICULTURE.: So that the hon. gentleman (Mr. Henderson) may not be in any way misled, I would say that the marking does not refer to the quality of the butter. It only provides that butter marked ' creamery ' shall be made in a creamery.


David Henderson: Then, from the wording of the resolutions we have been very much misled. If the Bill is only intended to apply to butter made in a creamery it may be quite possible-


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: That provision of the Bill only applies to creamery butter.


David Henderson: And does not apply to dairy butter ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I will read the provision :
No person shall brand or mark the word ' creamery ' or any combination of words which includes the word ' creamery ' upon any box, package or wrapper containing butter, unless the butter contained consists wholly of creamery butter manufactured in one place.
That is the only clause that applies to the marking or branding of butter.


David Henderson: That is rather an accusation against the farmers of this country that they have been indulging in the practice here prohibited. I never heard of it before, and I do not think it is done to any extent. What the hon. minister said a short time ago is perfectly true-there is a very good class of butter made throughout the country and put up in very suitable packages. It is not made up, as a rule, in the way the hon. gentleman speaks of-buying it in country stores and repacking it. So far as my section of the country is concerned, the day of that practice has entirely passed away. We never hear of a merchant repacking butter, because, if he did so, it would result in loss to himself. The practice at the present time is to give out pails holding about fifteen to seventeen pounds to the farmers' wives who take them home and fill them with first-class dairy butter, then return them and get another pail. These pails are shipped by express to the large markets of the country, and in that way the best possible price is obtained. Where a farmer is able to make Mr. HENDERSON.
a larger quantity, he takes a tub holding twenty-five to thirty pounds. In this way the dealers secure first-class butter, which is in many respects quite as good as creamery butter, amd by some preferred, as it is not quite so costly. My idea was that if these packages had to be stamped, and inspected and marked in any way that was going to cause the least interference with the trade, a trade which is carried on to a large extent in country stores, it would be an injury not only to the business man who handled the butter, but to the farmers who made it. I am glad to know, however, that the hon. minister is not placing such restrictions on the trade as would cause that interference. Possibly I will be better able to discuss this matter when the Bill comes down. I am quite willing, having elicited this information, now to lea^e the matter until the Bill is before the House.


Mr. ROBINSON (Elgin).: I think it would be advisable to have the Bill printed so that we may read it and know what it is. I would like to say something on this question, but I want to be sure first that I know what the Bill is.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: The rules of the House require a Bill of this kind to be introduced by resolution. The resolution contains only a general description of the Bill, the details will come when the Bill itself is introduced, which I propose to do the moment this resolution is passed.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL (Hon. Sir William Mulock).: When I heard the hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Taylor) and the hon. member for East Grey (Mr. Sproule) expressing their views upon this question, and attacking the motives of the Minister of Agriculture, and referring to his past record on this question; and when I heard the hon. member for Leeds claiming credit for having placed an Act upon the statute-book prohibiting the importation of oleomargarine, butterine and other such articles, my mind went back a few years ago when a debate took place in the House of Commons on this question, and perhaps my hon. friends opposite would like to have their memories refreshed as to what their views were on that occasion. They have endeavoured to refresh the memory of the Minister of Agriculture as to what he said and did. The hon. member for Leeds claims to have introduced a measure to prohibit the manufacture, sale and importation of oleomargarine. As the Minister of Customs has stated, that was not the object of the member for Leeds, nor was it the policy of the member for East Grey.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Would the hon. gentleman allow me one moment ? The amount that was put on it was declared to be prohibitive, and that is why it was not an Act absolutely to prohibit. But the amount

put on it was a prohibitive amount, and it was believed then to be sufficient.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: I see. And then the member for East Grey, believing that it was prohibitory of the manufacture of these articles, supported it for that reason, he was in favour of that prohibition.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: So far as that went, I was.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: Well, let me refresh his memory. The question in that debate on which the member for East Grey spoke, was whether there should be a regulation of the traffic or a prohibition of the traffic. Let me read the opinion of the member for East Grey on that occasion. I quote from the 'Hansard' of 1886, April 7, page 550. After dealing with the subject generally, the hon. member for East Grey proceeded as follows :
Now while the restrictions proposed by the Minister of Inland Revenue may be sufficient in one direction to remove this evil, I think they will hardly be sufficient to entirely control this article. I believe they are in the right direction. and if there are those in the country who wish to buy and use oleomargarine and butiter-ine instead of butter. I think they should have the right to do so;-
Is that my hon. friend's opinion to-day V


Thomas Simpson Sproule: No.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: Well, open confession is good for the soul, I commend him for his confesson. Let me refresh his memory further, for he went on to say :
-but let it be distinctly understood that they know what they are buying ; let a stamp and the name be put on each package so as to clearly show what It is.
As my hon. friend has modified his views, I will not press him any further, because he has openly confessed that his views have undergone a change. The hon. member for Leeds, however, stood by his guns, he was determined to legalize the use of oleomargarine in this country. He stood by the resolution to put a duty upon it, a tax upon it, to protect, as the Minister of Customs said, and encourage its manufacture.


George Taylor: Quote what the member for Leeds said.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: ' I will give the hon. gentleman's resolution, which I suppose explains his meaning.
That it is expedient to bring In a Bill to regulate the manufacture and sale of oleomargarine, butterine and other substitutes for butter.
Not to prohibit but to regulate the manufacture. He said a great many things that were not very pertinent to the question, but here is something he said which I will read. It will be found in the ' Hansard,' of the 7th of April, 1886 :
I asked at the same time that an excise and customs duty of ten cents per pound be placed on all oleomargarine, either imported or manufactured in the country-


George Taylor: Hear, hear.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL (reading) :: -and I am glad to say that the government, true to its protective policy-the national policy -came down with a resolution placing a customs duty of ten cents and an excise duty of eight cents per pound on all these substitutes. For this act I am sure they will receive the thanks of every farmer in Canada.
For encouraging the manufacture of oleomargarine, butterine and other fraudulent substitutes for butter, the member for Leeds says he is sure the government will receive the thanks of the farmers of Canada. Will the hon. gentleman repeat that sentiment to-day V And to-day if he had a chance, would he support a policy of protecting and encouraging the manufacture of oleomargarine, butterine, and other frauds of this character ? Is that his position as a friend of the farmer ? He goes on to the same effect.


George Taylor: Read it all.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: I will have some mercy on this committee. I will show how the question was disposed of. This proposition of the member for Leeds to encourage the manufacture of oleomargarine was challenged by the member for North Brant, to-day the Minister of Customs (Hon. Mr. Paterson). In amendment to the motion of the Minister of Customs of that day, the then member for North Brant moved the following:
The importation of these articles into Canada is hereby prohibited under a penalty of $200. together with the forfeiture of such goods and packages in which they are contained.
What was the fate of my hon. friend's measure ? The fate of it was that he had to abandon it. The government threw him overboard. The government found that they had to abandon the proposition to license the manufacture of oleomargarine. They repudiated my hon. friend's policy and ultimately adopted the course which had been marked out by the then opposition as to what was in the best interests of this country. My hon. friend underwent a change of heart. He receded from his position and adopted the policy suggested to him by the present hon. Minister of Customs so that prohibition of oleomargarine became the law of the land.


George Taylor: I am not surprised that the hon. gentlemen occupying the positions of Minister of Customs (Hon. Mr. Paterson) and Minister of Labour and Postmaster General (Hon. Sir William Mulock) should condescend to try to distort the facts for the purpose of endeavouring to injure a member of the opposition and to take credit from the late Conservative government for

the resolution moved by a member then in opposition which the government accepted. What are the facts of the case ? I introduced a resolution just as the hon. Minister of Agriculture is introducing a resolution to-day because it affected the revenue.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: What was your resolution ?


George Taylor: I am going to read the resolution. I moved the following resolution :
That it is expedient to bring in a Bill to regulate the manufacture and sale of oleomargarine, butterine or other substitutes for butter.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: Could the hon. gentleman not have introduced a resolution in the terms of the amendment that the present hon. Minister of Customs presented to the House ?


George Taylor: I will give the hon. gentleman the information. After my hon. friend from East Grey (Mr. Sproule), the late member for Cornwall, Mr. Darby Bergin, who had thoroughly studied this question, myself and other hon. members sitting behind the government of that day had proved conclusively to the government that there was something in the resolution which I had introduced, and that the government should deal with the question, the government took it up notwithstanding the opposition of the present hon. Minister of Agriculture who made the speech that I have just quoted opposing the action of myself and the government in interfering with the subject at all. Another hon. gentleman who then sat on the opposition side of the House, Mr. Jackson, a lumberman up west, opposed the proposition, because, he said, if it were adopted he could not go over to the United States, buy oleomargarine and send it to his camps to feed his men. The present right hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce (Right Hon. Sir Richard Cartwright) said it was the most outrageous proposition ever propounded in this House and I met with the fiercest opposition from other hon. gentlemen then in opposition some of whom are now on the treasury benches. My resolution was defeated. I shall quote the words that the hon. Postmaster General has just read. The hon. Minister of Customs misrepresented me in saying that I brought in a Bill asking for a lower duty for excise than for customs. The hon. gentleman made a misstatement and I want him to apologize and to take that back. The hon. Postmaster General read my words in which I said :
I asked at the same time, that an excise and customs duty of ten cents per pound be placed on all oleomargarine.
What is ten cents a pound ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: That was to regulate it.


George Taylor: Is that mot better so far as prohibiting the manufactured article coming from the United States is concerned than the Bill that the hon. Minister of Agriculture proposes ? Ten cents per pound was prohibition and more than prohibition and that is the duty which I asked the government to impose. But, when the government came down with a resolution, they proposed a customs duty of ten cents a pound and an excise duty of eight cents a pound.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: That is just what you wanted.


George Taylor: Where does the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals get his information ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Here, if the hon. gentleman will allow me. The hon. gentleman said :
And I am glad to say that the government, true to its protective policy-the national policy -came down with a resolution placing a customs duty of ten cents and an excise duty of eight cents p!er pound on all these substitutes For this act. I am sure they will receive the thanks of every farmer in Canada.


George Taylor: The hon. Minister of Railways and Canals and his colleagues have just had one policy since they came into possession of the treasury benches ; and that is to attempt to make the people believe that they are doing something, when they are not doing it.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: You had better not have risen on this question.


George Taylor: The hon. Minister of Railways and Canals has made the statement that eight cents a pound is just what I wanted. If he will read what I said he will find that I asked for ten cents per pound customs and ten cents per pound excise.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: You did not ask for what you wanted, but you, got what you wanted.


George Taylor: Any person who has read ' Hansard ' and who has followed the discussion which took place day in and day out on several occasions must know that all of the arguments of the then opposition were to the effect that ten cents a pound duty was prohibitive. The present hon. Minister of Customs suggested to Sir Mackenzie Bowell, who was then Minister of Customs, that as ten cents a pound was prohibitive he might as well prohibit it altogether and the government accepted that proposition. What was the result ? The present hon. Minister of Customs went through the country claiming that he was the father of the oleomargarine resolution and the late Speaker, Mr. Bain, wrote a letter approving of the suggestion that the


George Taylor: hon. Minister of Customs was the party who had introduced and carried through this law.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: Hear, hear.


George Taylor: My hon. friend the Minister of Customs says ' hear, hear.' What had he to do with it ? Who was the party who introduced it ? He simply suggested, when we were in committee, that as ten cents per pound would be prohibitive it might as well be made prohibitive and the government accepted the suggestion. Yet, he claimed credit for having been intrumen-tal in bringing about that law. Mr. Bain, through correspondence in the press, challenged me to meet him and discuss the question and to bring ' Hansard ' and the records of the House. I accepted the challenge and left him to name any place of meeting that he liked in the country. He named a strong Grit hole in my constituency where there was not a Tory living for five miles around.
Mr. FRASER, Blessed place.


George Taylor: I accepted his challenge and we drove to this place. The hall was filled with 300 or 400 people, and he read from ' Hansard ' and the Votes and Proceedings and I made my speech. We left it to the vote of the audience as to who had won the bet, and notwithstanding that he had named his ground and named the audience more than seven-eights of the people stood up in favour of my contention. If you have ever seen a gentleman leave a meeting like a dog with his tail between his legs you will know how Mr. Bain left that meeting and the hon. Minister of Customs would have done the same thing if he had been there with his loud voice. He claimed that he was the man who was responsible for having that law passed and now the hon. Minister of Agriculture comes forward with a Bill claiming that the law passed by the Conservative government is ineffective because it does not contain machinery for enforcing the penalty. What is the penalty in the Act ?
No oleomargarine, butterine or other substitute of butter manufactured from any animal substance other than milk.
Is process butter manufactured entirely out of pure milk ? Is there not some ingredient in it that would make it a substitute for butter, and bring it under that Act ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Not that we know of.


George Taylor: Well, you can very easily add two words as an amendment to that Act which will bring process butter under it, but what you want to do is to resort to the fraud of making the people think that you are introducing a new Bill and posing as the friends of the farmer. If you amend the existing Act by two words it will be stronger than the Bill you introduce now. I do not believe that the Minister of Customs, occupying the honourable office that he does, should take upon himself to misrepresent me, by stating that I asked for ten cents a pound customs duty and eight cents a pound excise duty on oleomargarine. My words are on record that I asked for ten cents customs and ten cents excise, which would be just as prohibitive as total prohibition of the manufacture and sale, but the government made it ten cents customs and eight cents excise. If there is any person in this country to whom credit is due for having that law in the statute-book prohibiting oleomargarine, it is the hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Taylor) who is now addressing you.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


George Taylor: Nearly every Liberal member in the House spoke against that measure at the time, and some of them are in the House to-day, and some are not. Now, after seventeen years the Minister of Agriculture comes forward to try and make the farmers believe that he is introducing an Act to protect them, and that the present law is not sufficient for that purpose. The Minister of Agriculture said that he was not left at home at the elections of 1887 because of his vote on that resolution. The question was not brought up in that election.
That every person who contravenes the provisions of this Act in any manner whatsoever shall incur a penalty not exceeding four hundred dollars and not less than two hundred dollars, and in default of payment *shall be liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding twelve months and not less than three months.
I will refer to the hon. Minister of Justice (Hon. Mr. Fitzpatrick) and ask him if there is not legal machinery in the country sufficient to enforce the statute law' of this country. What better could the hon. Minister of Agriculture do in his Bill ? He talks about the law' not being effective. The Act which I am responsible for getting the government to pass seventeen years ago reads as follows :


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: The hon. gentleman is mistaken. The whole contest in my county in 1887 turned on that question, and my hon. friend's heelers were primed to come there and try to beat me, but my majority was three times as great as it was before.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


George Taylor: It was not in the elections of 1887, but in the elections of 1892 that the phamphlet quoting his speech was circulated and the Minister of Agriculture was snowed under.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: You are entirely mistaken.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: I have no desire to detract from the efforts of the hon. gentleman (Mr. Taylor) in this direction, and I give him all the credit due him for the Bill which he speaks of in such appreciative terms. But the hon. gentleman (Mr. Taylor), was in favour of a Bill to put eight cents a pound excise duty and ten cents a pound import duty on this * article, and he will see that this gave a protection of 25 per cent to the manufacturers of oleomargarine in Canada. True to their protective instincts, the Conservative government were in favour of encouraging the manufacture of oleomargarine in Canada by a 25 per cent duty.


George Taylor: If the government put eight cents a pound excise duty on biscuits would the Minister of Customs manufacture any ?


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: If they put an excise duty of eight cents a pound on biscuits and an import duty of ten cents a pound, we would have 25 per cent protection and we could get along very well. That is precisely what the hon. gentleman (Mr. Taylor) thanked the Conservative government for doing in the case of oleomargarine, when they put 25 per cent protection on to promote its manufacture in this country. I give the hon. member (Mr. Taylor) credit for that and, my friends claim the credit for me that I was opposed to the manufacture of oleomargarine, but-terine and other such substances in this country at all. I am willing to leave it that way. There is no quarrel between the hon. gentleman and myself. He thanks the Conservative government for putting a less excise than export duty on oleomargarine, and I held that it was better to prohibit it altogether, and my views prevailed with the government, and that law is the law of the land to-day. And to-day the hon. gentleman (Mr. Taylor) seems to manifest hostility to the prohibition of the manufacture of this process butter which tends to reduce the value of our dairy products. The fact that people are about to invest large sums of money in machinery for the manufacture of this kind of butter shows that they are confident that it will be a legitimate enterprise under the present law, and I have no doubt that they have taken legal advice on that. The leader of the opposition has facetiously referred to nipping ideas in the bud, but I suppose the ideas of the leader of the opposition have come from the bud to the full fruit in some cases. The idea of manufacturing this butter in Canada is just in the bud, and the Minister of Agriculture thinks that this session should not pass without preventing this budding idea from bearing fruit. I am heartily in accord with my colleague, and I believe that every gentleman in this House who has the protection and encouragement of our dairying interests at heart, is in accord Hon. Mr. FISHER.
with the Minister of Agriculture in his policy in this regard. I have no desire to detract from any service -which my hon. friend from Leeds rendered to the dairy interests by any resolution he moved in this House.


George Taylor: I wish to ask the hon. gentleman if he should not change the last words he gave utterance to ? He said, we propose to deal with this article just as we did with oleomargarine and butterine. Could he not say just as the late government did ?


Matthew Henry Cochrane: I am sure that this debate must be very interesting to any gentlemen sitting in the House and listening to it. It originated from the fact that the Minister of Agriculture introduced a resolution, and the hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Taylor) referred to something that the hon. Minister of Agriculture had said in a previous session ; and what an exhibition we have had from ministers of the Crown. When the Minister of Agriculture, as the boys say, got into a hole, we saw the Postmaster General rushing to his rescue, and what an argument he produced. He wanted to show that the hon. member for Leeds should not get any credit at all-that the resolution was moved by the Minister of Customs when he was on this side of the House, and that he is entitled to all the glory. He wanted to lead the country to believe that this was a great Babylon which they had built when in opposition. I was surprised to see the Minister of Customs, occupying the honourable position he does, descend to such trivial matters in order to get a little mushroom xjopularity ; and the House has been detained for hours


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: And is being detained now.


Matthew Henry Cochrane: Yes, profitably detained, if the hon. minister will open his great mind to receive a little instruction. Now, does he not think, when he looks the matter over, that it was beneath his position as a minister of the Crown to spend an hour or two elaborating that fact that he was responsible for the great notoriety of moving to amend an Act when he was in opposition ? Well, 1 am glad to state to the hon. gentleman that the government I supported at that time had brains enough to accept something which appealed to the better intellect of the ministers of the day ; and I am very much afraid that is a commodity which hon. gentlemen appear very much lacking in. They are so big in their own estimation that they cannot receive any instruction, and they talk about ' my ' officers and ' my ' engineers, ' my ' this and ' my ' that. Who ever supposed that the Minister of Customs had any officials ? Why. they are the country's officials, and he is tlie servant of the country. The trouble with

these gentlemen is that they have got swollen heads, and they do not realize that to the extent they ought to. They do not realize that they are servants of the people, and they talk about ' my ' officials. I think they had better get down to hard-pan and common sense, and occupy the time of the House in a different way. We have been here between three and four months, and why was this resolution not brought down some time ago ? Why are the important measures left till we have been here so long, when we might better be at home attending to our business than listening to such nonsense as we have been hearing to-day ?


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: Are you in favour of the Bill ?


Mr. BOYD.: I would like to ask the Minister of Agriculture to read that portion of tlie Bill which refers to the percentage of water ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Any butter that contains over l(i per cent of water shall be considered bad buttei.


Nathaniel Boyd: That is, fanners' butter and all ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Any butter.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Who would determine the percentage of water ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Ultimately it would be determined by an analysis.


David Henderson: I understood the minister to say that this Bill had no reference to dairy butter. I think it is a most dangerous thing if every package of butter, r.o matter how small is to be dealt with in the same way as creamery butter, and a penalty imposed if it does not come up to the required standard. For my part, I am not able to determine how much water a good class of dairy butter should contain. I presume that when the minister said water, he meant liquid of any kind. For instance, I presume he would treat dissolved salt as water. Some people think that an ounce of salt to the pound is only a fair proportion to use and if that were dissolved you would have 6 per cent of water in the butter. So that a woman making butter with that proportion of salt and the usual 13 per cent of water might render herself liable to a penalty of $100 or $200, whereas if she put in 15J per cent of liquid she would be quite free. I think it is very dangerous legislation. It almost makes the making of butter prohibitive.


Mr. HEYD.: Is salt, water ?


David Henderson: The hon. gentleman is surely old enough to know that salt is not water ; but if you dissolve salt you will get something very like water. I suppose that is what the minister has reference to.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Oh, no.


David Henderson: Do you mean to tell me that you are making a provision that will prohibit fresh water to the extent of 16 per cent from being used in butter ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: My hon. friend is using wrong terms altogether. Salt, when dissolved in butter is not included. When the butter is analysed, its original constituents are taken, and the salt is one thing and the butter another. The question of the amount of salt in the butter and the amount of water are two entirely separate things. The hon. gentleman said I had misled the House in saying that this did not apply to dairy butter. I said that the clause which dealt with the branding of creamery butter applied to creamery butter, and there was another clause applying to dairy butter, and the rest of the Bill applied to butter generally. With regard to the quantity of water in butter, my reason for including that clause in the Bill is that recently in England there has been considerable discussion as to how much water should be rightly contained in butter, and within the past year a law has been passed in England providing that any butter which contains more than 16 per cent of water shall be held to be adulterated. Therefore, I wish to see that no butter is sent from Canada to England, which is our great market for butter, which can there be held to be adulterated. If we found that our Canadian butter was liable to be seized in England, and declared to be adulterated under their law, that would be quoted against us in the English market and would seriously injure us in our trade there. The particular adulteration which was found would not necessarily come out, but the fact that a package of Canadian butter had been found under their law to be adulterated because it contained more than 16 per cent of water, would hurt our trade there very much.


Charles Bernhard Heyd: Can this deterioration take place innocently or is it supposed to be the result of intent ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: The percentage of water in butter results from the process of manufacture. The manufacture may be so managed that the butter will hold more or less water. As a matter of fact, Canadian butter contains, in ninety-nine cases out of a hundred, much less water than sixteen per cent. It is a remarkably dry butter. The water is worked out of it to such an extent that the average water remaining is between twelve and thirteen per cent. In very rare instances it is over sixteen per cent.


John William Bell: Is it not a fact that New Zealand and Australia claim that they are producing a butter with something like two per cent less water than Canadian butter.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: That has been stated. But as a matter of fact, on analysing a number of specimens of Canadian butter, we found the average of water to be between twelve and twelve and one-half per cent.


Nathaniel Boyd: What kind ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Creamery, chiefly.'


Nathaniel Boyd: It was all creamery.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I suppose my hon. friend alludes to some analysis made lately at the experimental farm, but those are not the only ones made in the country by any means.


Mr. MACLAREN (Perth).: Has any objection been found by the English people with the process butter shipped from the United States to England ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I am not aware. But the United States have found the evil so great that they have been obliged to legislate against it. They have passed stringent laws dealing with the trading in and manufacture of this process butter. They have not gone so far as my proposal does. They have undertaken to regulate and license it, but we think it better to stop it altogether. It is because of that legislation in the United States, that proposals are being made to introduce the manufacture of this process butter into Canada. I believe that actually very little has been made in Canada for exportation either to the United States or to England. With regard to the water question, I have adopted the measure of sixteen per cent, because that is the English law, but, as a matter of fact, there is very little, if any butter, made in Canada which contains anything near sixteen per cent. The average is twelve and one-half per cent, and in very few cases over thirteen per cent has been found. Any ordinary experts would declare butter, whether dairy or creamery, having over sixteen per cent water, as not being of the finest quality. There has been a certain process adopted for the purpose of keeping more water in the butter. There was a proposal made to start a factory in this country for the express purpose of manufacturing a particular kind of butter under a particular system, which would have something over twenty per cent water. If that enterprise were gone on with, such butter would be sent to the English market, and there pounced upon as adulterated, and the story would go abroad that Canadians were exporting adulterated butter.


Charles Bernhard Heyd: I suppose we have a right to assume that any butter which contains over sixteen per cent of water contains that water for a fraudulent purpose ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: It would certainly be detrimental to the quality Mr. BELL.
of the butter. No one who is familiar with the process of manufacture would leave over sixteen per cent water in the butter with the expectation or intention of making good butter.


Mr. WRIGHT.: As a manufacturer and exporter of butter, I think this law very delsirable. Perhaps many hon. members do not know how this butter is manufactured. When it comes from the churn, it comes in a granulated form. We then wash the buttermilk out with clean water. When washing that buttermilk out, you can leave as much water in the butter as you choose, and it is very desirable we should know what the law is so as not to leave a greater percentage than the law allows. After you take it out of the churn, you put it into a butter worker with the water all in, and that is the time when you take out the extra moisture. If you leave too much moisture in, that butter will deteriorate very soon after shipment. While perfectly fresh, it is all right, but if you export it with too much water in it, it becomes rancid and objectionable in every respect. The greater percentage of water you leave in, the greater number of pounds you get paid for, but you are selling water as butter. It is very desirable we should know exactly the amount of water we are allowed to leave in, and not ship an unsaleable article to the old country. With reference to salt, you can put in about just as much salt as you like; but when the butter analysts of the United Itiugdom find too much salt and water, your butter will be condemned and that will give a bad name to all Canadian butter. Iam exceedingly pleased that this law will be applied to butter manufactured at the farm, because, let me tell my hon. friend from Halton (Mr. Henderson) that I have purchased butter myself which contained two hundred per cent salt. The outside is butter and the inside is all salt.


An hon. MEMBER.: Where did it come from ?


Aaron Abel Wright: I am sorry to say that it came from my own riding, but I understand that such practice is not confined to one riding, but is found in almost every county of this country. As I have said, I am very desirous that this proposed measure should become law in order that our butter makers may have a standard to go by and know how much moisture they should leave in the article.


John Dowsley Reid: I do not think there is an hon member in this House who would desire to do anything that would not benefit the butter industry. The only point I would make has regard to butter made on the farm for home consumption. If this Bill would apply only to butter made for export, I would certainly consider it would be a great help to the farming industry, but what I object to is that if a farmer

takes a few pounds of butter which contains a little more water than sixteen per cent into a town, he is liable to be brought up before a magistrate and made to pay a heavy penalty. If this butter were exported, it could all be inspected at the port of export, or, if any butter should reach the other side of the Atlantic which was found to contain more than sixteen per cent of water, the shipper might be made to pay a heavy penalty. I have no objection to a heavy penalty being imposed on anybody exporting this class of butter to a foreign market, because the export of inferior goods injures the whole industry of this country. But, if possible, I would like to see the butter sold in our own markets, butter sold in the ordinary way in the stores by the farmers, excepted from the operation of this Bill. If this exception were made, I think the Bill would be a good thing and would greatly help the butter industry.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: That is a detail we could discuss when we come to the second reading of the Bill.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Is it intended to apply to all butter ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Parts of the Bill apply to all butter, and parts to a certain class of butter.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I mean that portion referring to the percentage of water.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: That applies to all butter.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Then I can only say that I think the minister will find very strong objection to this portion of the Bill. There is a large quantity of butter made by the farmers in private dairies that would be liable to attack if this Bill were made law, and that would be likely to bring some people who had no intention of violating the law under a penalty. Butter made in rolls and afterwards assorted in the stores and repacked, frequently, I am quite sure, would contain over 16 per cent of water.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: There is very little butter made anywhere in Canada that contains anything like 16 per cent of water.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Butter will absorb and contain a very large proportion of water. It is said that you can incorporate with lard no less than 60 per cent of water; and, if that is so, I am quite sure you could very easily retain 16 per cent of water in butter and yet the butter not appear very bad. But there is another point in the packing of butter which might add to the quantity of water. The farmer covers butter with salt, which afterwards dissolves and would be found in the package, adding greatly to the percentage of water.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: No.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What kind of test would be applied to detect it ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Salt that is melted in the water does not become part of the water, but is still salt.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: There is no doubt that water will dissolve a very large quantity of salt. The test must be the fluid that the butter contains.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: If you take a tumbler full of water and dissolved in it as much salt as the water will hold, you do not add anything to the quantity of water. There is more salt and water but not more water.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: That is very clear. But will the hon. minister say that he will not increase the weight of it ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Yes, but not the weight of water.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: How are you going to determine the percentage of water but by the weight ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: By analysis.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: But you must, by some means or other determine how much fluid is in the butter and-


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: No, you determine the quantity of water by analysis.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: You must extract it from the butter in some way before you ascertain the percentage. If 16 parts in 100 of the butter are found to be liquid, that butter would be condemned under this Act, I take it.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: If 16 parts in 100 were found to be water, the butter could only be sold in violation of the law.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: How will the analysis determine the difference between salt dissolved by the water and the water itself ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I am not a chemist, so cannot tell the hon. gentleman how it is done, but I know that chemists can ascertain these proportions.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I think that is where the minister is entirely mistaken in his view, and where the Bill would be likely to work very great hardship amongst the farmers. Many of them, I am quite sure, sell butter that contains fully 16 per cent of fluid that would be regarded as water by the party buying it. That is where it seems to me, the Bill goes a little too far. I can readily understand and appreciate the desire of the minister to ensure the making of a good article for export, because the placing of an inferior article on the foreign market destroys the reputation of our butter. If he would apply it only to butter

that is exported, it would not be so bad. But so long as farmers will continue the old process of making butter at home and selling it in pails, crocks, or boxes, I am afraid that, with such a law as this strictly enforced, many would be found unintentionally violating the law.


Mr. FRASER.: I do not wish to discuss the resolutions, but to deal with another matter. Really, are we not losing time by this discussion ? When the Bill comes up, all this will have to be said over again. Why not pass the resolutions, and then, if there are objections to the details of the Bill, they can be raised when the Bill is before us. Surely this discussion of all the details of a Bill at this stage and the discussion afterwards of the Bill, is a waste of time. The resolutions are worthless unless they are followed by a Bill and the discussion of that Bill is all that is necessary.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I think the hon. gentleman (Mr. Fraser) offers his suggestions a little prematurely. It has always been the rule for the House to take advantage of the opportunity afforded by the resolutions to ask questions with a view to gaining information from the minister. This is quite within the right of hon. members. We desire to have information, and it is proper that that information should be given at this stage.


David Henderson: I do not want to be charged with prolonging the discussion, but, I "would like to ask a question. And, by the way, I think that, perhaps, the hon. minister himself (Hon. Mr. Fisher) has taken as much time as anybody else, and, if there are offenders, he is as great an offender as any hon. gentleman on this side. There are certain things we ought to know now with reference to the wording of the Bill, that we may think the matter over. I would like to ask the hon. minister what provision he proposes to make for the enforcement of this law ? Will he have an inspector in every country village to see that not more than 16 per cent of water is to be found in every pound of butter brought into the country store ? And, if it does contain more than 16 per cent of water, how is he going to determine it ? I am afraid that, if he is going to secure the strict enforcement of this law, he will have to have an army of inspectors all over this country. We had it brought to our attention only yesterday the fact that there has been appointed an inspector of binder twine, a man to ascertain whether a ball of twine stamped as containing 600 feet really does contain 600 feet or not. And this inspector is to be paid $1,200 a year, and he cannot inspect that ball of twine without making it useless. I am afraid that this Bill means positions for a large army of officials, an opportunity for the hon. minister to provide positions for his friends, and at the Mr. SPROULB.
same time, it will be such a restraint on the ordinary trade of the country that, in my opinion, it will not be acceptable to the country.


Hon. Mr. ROSS (Victoria, N.S.).: Perhaps I have packed as much butter and know as much about it as any member of this House, and I may say that there never was.a time in the history of Canada when it behooved the exporters of butter to look after its quality more than to-day, otherwise their butter will not stand the test in the European markets. I heard a lecture given by a man from Glasgow, the editor of the 'Scottish Farmer,' in which he said that Canadian butter contained more water than that which came from New Zealand, and that after it got to 16 per cent, it ran the risk of being condemned in the Glasgow market. Therefore, I think it is the duty of exporters and makers of butter to see that the standard is kept up as high as possible. Otherwise our butter will only compare with that which is now imported from Siberia.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: With regard to the suggestions that have been made, I may say that while I have drawn this Bill to the best of my ability, I do not claim that it is perfect, and I will be willing to discuss suggestions. The question as to butter which contains 16 per cent of water, whether it is for export or not, is worthy of consideration and discussion. I confess for myself that I cannot see at the moment any way by which we can tell whether butter is for export or not. A great deal of butter that might be said not to be for export might afterwards be exported. We have got to guard against difficulties of that kind. But I shall 'look into that matter before asking the House to consider the details of the Bill. If any hon. gentleman in the House can propose improvements to the Bill, I will be glad to discuss them and, if convinced, to adopt them.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: As I made a statement which has been criticised somewhat severely, I may say that the present Act might be slightly amended so as to cover all that is required. Take the present Act where it reads :
iNo oleomargarine, butterine or other substitute for butter manufactured from any animal substance other than milk.
Insert the word ' process ' after the word ' butterine,' leaving out the following three words ' other than milk,' and then amend your Marks Act, and you have the whole Bill.


Mr. JOHNSTON (Cardwell).: I desire to ask the Minister of Agriculture by what means a farmer can ascertain how much water there is in his butter ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I do not know that the farmer himself could easily determine that. I suppose any good

butter maker would know how much water ought to be left in the butter, by its consistency or its dryness when it was finished. As a matter of fact, people who make butter in Canada never leave 16 per cent of water in it, nor anything near that percentage, generally. In cases where more than 10 per cent has been found in butter, I believe it was done intentionally, so as to try to sell water for butter. I am convinced that no farmer's wife or daughter who make butter in this country would leave 16 per cent of water in it, or anything near that.


Robert Johnston: I believe that the minister is right, that the women who make butter leave no more water in it than they can help. But the butter dealers might have a suspicion that there was an undue quantity of water in the butter, and if this Act is passed I fear it would have a tendency to make farmers take their cream to the creameries rather than run the risk of being prosecuted for having too much water in their butter, when they have no way of knowing how much,water there is.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: The proof that the butter had too much water would be on the person attacking.


Robert Johnston: The farmer takes his butter to a store, he has no way of testing it for water, and perhaps the dealer has no way of testing it, though he may pretend that he has, and he may frighten the farmer by asserting that his butter contains too much water. The effect would be to drive the fanners to take their butter to the creamery, seeing that they have no way of testing it themselves. The dealer would say to them : Your butter contains too much water, I cannot give you such a price. The farmer has to take the price offered, or take his butter back. I do not think the duty of testing the butter should be on the farmer who makes it, but on the dealer-on the person who exports it.


Nathaniel Boyd: I think that is the crucial point in this Bill, and the minister, before he proceeds with his Bill, should be very well informed on that particular point and be able to give the information required. I may say that the information that has been given before the Agricultural Committee by officers of the experimental farm, is that out of 105 samples of creamery butter that were examined, they ran from 7 and 8 to 16 per cent of water. The majority of the samples showed between 12 and 13 per cent. So when the minister says that no farmers make butter with anything near 16 per cent of water, I do not think he is quite correct. There was one sample of creamery butter containing over 16 per cent, and made for export. I think, therefore, that portion of the Bill should be very carefully considered. I suppose the minister will have a test and examination made of farmers' butter before he asks us to support the Bill.


Robert Johnston: I would be sorry to oppose this Bill if I thought it was in the interests of the general public. I believe that something should be done to keep up the standard of our butter in the old country market, but I do not think the farmers should be compelled to do something they cannot do. The burden of testing the butter for water should be thrown, not upon the farmers, but upon those who buy the butter. There is nothing in the Bill to indicate who it is that is to judge of the amount of water in the butter. It has to be tested in some place, and the famers have no way of testing it.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: And the ordinary dealers cannot test it either.


Robert Johnston: Then the farmers do not know whether it contains too much water or not ?


Charles Bernhard Heyd: I have been handling butter for the last forty years in the grocery trade, and the question has never presented itself, in all that length of time, whether there was too much water in the butter, and I am inclined to think that if this Bill becomes law it will not affect the farmer in the slightest degree. It will only affect that quality of butter which is exported. In regard to the butter which is sold by the farmer to the grocer, the question of water never presents itself, and I am satisfied that no Canadian woman who makes butter will ever make butter that contains 16 per cent of water. If 16 per cent of water is left in the butter, it is left in designedly, and it must be left in as the result of a peculiar process adopted for the purpose of perpetrating a fraud.


Robert Johnston: There is no way of testing the percentage of water. The manufacturers of butter in creameries are able to test for the percentage of water, but the woman who makes butter has no way of making a test.


Charles Bernhard Heyd: If the maker of creamery butter leaves in 16 per cent of water he does it designedly, but if a farmer's wife makes butter containing 16 per cent of water she does not do it designedly.


Robert Johnston: But she is liable to this penalty whether she desires to do it or not.


Charles Bernhard Heyd: She never will be liable.


Robert Johnston: That is your judgment. Did you ever make butter or farm ?


Charles Bernhard Heyd: I have bought butter for years.


Robert Johnston: You did not know the percentage of water in it ?


Charles Bernhard Heyd: Pretty nearly.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Without wishing to prolong the discussion,

I would say to my hon. friend, that as a matter of fact the ordinary butter that is made in Canada does not contain' as much as even 14 per cent of water, and what the hon. member for South Brant (Mr. Heyd) says is perfectly true, that if it contains more than that it is because the maker has wished it to contain more. Butter that contains more is verging on the limits of butter that will be inferior and in some cases it becomes of actually inferior quality. The person who intends to make simply good butter will make it in such a way that there will not be 16 per cent of water in it. That is the way the ordinary dairy butter is made in this country by people even who make it by rule of thumb, and the result is that the butter they make if of good quality, does not contain as much as 14 per cent of water. When it goes to a larger percentage it is because somebody is attempting to put in as much water as he possibly can without making his butter bad, and in this he is liable to overstep the limits. However, I am perfectly willing to discuss this question and to investigate it, and I will do so before I bring in the Bill.


Jabel Robinson: I would like to ask the hon. Minister of Agriculture if it is his intention to appoint butter inspectors 1


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: There is no intention to appoint inspectors to carry out this Bill ?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: How are you going to carry it out ?


Robert Laird Borden: In regard to what the hon. member for South Brant (Mr. Heyd) has said, of course, the hon. Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Fisher) may introduce a Bill in such terms as will make any farmer liable for even an innocent violation of the law. There are examples of statute law requiring guilty knowledge and of other statutes not requiring it. I understand the observation of the hon. member for South Brant to be a little different from the hon. minister's understanding of it. I understand him to suggest that it might be quite possible for a farmer's wife to make butter of such a character that it would contain more than 16 per cent of water, and to do that quite innocently. The hon. gentleman supposed that an individual who was innocently violating the terms of the statute would not be subject to any penalty. That might be a matter for the consideration of the minister before lie brings in a Bill. In some cases motives of public policy have induced parliament to hold a man guilty and to make him liable to the penalty even where there is no intention whatever of violating the Act, because in such cases it is in the public interest that whether innocently or with guilty Hon. Mr. FISHER.
knowledge there should be a penalty for the violation of the terms of the statute!
Mr. SPROULE'. In regard to the hon. minister's opinion that this law could not be violated unless a person designedly intends to do it, I may say that I do not agree with his opinion as to the way in which a large percentage of water will be found in butter. When butter is churned, it is in granules, and between these granules the space is filled up largely with milk and whey, and water is put in to wash out the milk and whey. If this is properly worked on an inclined plane the water will run off. In the ordinary dairy, whether worked with a machine or on a tray, it is always on an inclined plane, and the water will run off. If it is not worked sufficiently it will contain a larger percentage of water and milk, and the reason why butter deteriorates rapidly is because of the large percentage of milk it contains. If that is well washed out it is purer and better butter and will contain a less percentage of water than it otherwise would. But, if butter is very little worked, and worked in some improper way, and the water is not constantly poured off, and the buttermilk washed off, then, it will contain a very much larger percentage of water and will be liable to be found to be in violation of the law. It is the careless butter maker who will be more likely to suffer, not from any design to put water into the butter, but from the fact that he did not work it enough to take out the water.
Resolution reported, read the second time, and agreed to.



INSPECTION AND SALE OF SEEDS.

[Stage Direction]
House in committee on following proposed resolution :
Resolved, that it is expedient to pass an Act providing that seeds of cereals, grasses, clovers, forage plants or vegetables, sold for the purpose of seeding, shall be free from the seeds of certain weeds ; establishing grades of seeds, of timothy, red clover, and alsike, and providing that such seeds offered for sale shall be marked with the seller's name and address, the name of the kind of seed, and the grade ; providing for the examination of such seeds, and their analysis by an official seed analyst ; and providing that one-half of the pecuniary penalties for contraventions of the Act shall be payable to the informant.
Thomas Simpson Sproule: Would the hon. minister explain this ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Mr. Chairman, this resolution comes up in consequence of the ruling of Mr. Speaker that the Bill which I introduced to the House and explained the other day, being a Bill dealing with trade in some of its provisions, must come in the form of a resolution. I explained the Bill the other day on its introduction and first reading. I would, therefore, ask the concurrence of the House in this resolution, so that we can

proceed again with the Bill in the ordinary form.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I do not think the hon. minister gave any explanation in regard to the Bill.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Yes I did.


David Henderson: 1 regret that I was not present when the hon. gentleman introduced his Bill, but I trust we will get some information in reference to it when the Bill is again introduced. The hon. minister seems to have been guilty of the very wonderful mistake for a farmer, of practically putting the cart before the horse when ln>
introduced a Bill first and had it read in the House, and then this afternoon brings in a resolution on which he founds that Bill. I do not suppose it will be necessary to go through the form of reintroducing the Bill, but it struck me as rather peculiar that some hon. gentlemen did not take exception to it, and hold the Minister of Agriculture to the same rule that was meted out to the hon. member for Montreal (Mr. Bicker-dike) on his Cigarette Bill. This Bill will have to be very carefully dealt with. There is a great deal of danger in having so much inspection. It certainly would be of benefit to the farming community to get seeds free from all kind of adulteration, but I rather fear that it is dangerous to inflict these large penalties for such slight infringements of the law as the difference between 81 per cent of purity and 79 per cent. I am not sure from the wording of the Bill whether it applies to the farmer who grows the seed and who sells it to the dealer in the first instance.


John William Bell: It does not.


David Henderson: I have read the sixth clause which refers to that, but the same question comes up here as came up in connection with the last resolution we considered. One person may sell butter to another not Intending it for export, but the purchaser may afterwards export it; and so the farmer may sell seed to a merchant not knowing whether it is going to be recleaned or not. If it is recleaned he would not be liable for the penalty, but if it is not recleaned there is a danger that he may be made liable.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: That is not the intention of the clause.


David Henderson: All these things will have to be very fully considered.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Hear, hear.


David Henderson: The farmer must have his apples inspected and he must have his butter inspected, and now he must have his seeds inspected. I do not find fault with these laws, but before putting them on the statute-book they should be well thought
out. I rather fear that such legislation Is going to open the, door to the appointment of persons to be inspectors of one thing or another, just as in the case of binder twine. I trust that these various Bills are not passed simply for the purpose of giving positions to the friends of tile government.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I can assure my hon. friend that the Bills are not promoted for that purpose. There is no intention of appointing an inspector with regard to the butter, but, although I cannot say positively, there may have to be an inspector or two appointed under this Bill. The farmers in the country have for years complained of the quality of seeds they purchased, first because of the number of weed seeds among them, and in the second place, because frequently the seeds are not found to be matured and germin-able. For many years individual farmers have sent seeds to the experimental farm to be tested, and the report was sent to the individual and was of no public utility. These complaints became so frequent that I instructed certain officers in my department under Prof. Robertson to start an investigation into the trade in seeds and the results were so startling that that investigation was extended. We found that farmers were imposed upon either by people who are selling inferior seeds, or through their own desire to obtain cheap seeds. We obtained a mass of information which was published in the bulletin issued by the department last year. I took advantage of the gatherings of farmers .last fall and winter to ask the speakers at meetings to discuss this question, and as a result we have had a large number of requests that we should protect the farmer in this respect. This Bill embodies what seems to be necessary to protect the purchaser of seeds in Canada. I do not say that the Bill is perfect. It is a difficult problem to deal with, and it requires the closest scrutiny, as my hon. friend from Halton has said. My officers before drawing up this Bill discussed the matter with the seed dealers and with the various agricultural bodies and I hope that with the thorough ventilation which the discussion of a Bill like this ougjjt to receive in the House (and I invite the fullest investigation and discussion of every detail of the Bill) that we may be able to find a solution of the difficulties which surround the seed trade in Canada. It is only when we have found that solution that I desire to make the necessary enactment which will carry out the full and matured judgment of the House.


Mr. LENNOX.: It is desirable I think that this resolution should pass ; and probably without that extended discussion that we have had on the resolution with reference to process butter. It is, however, important to know definitely from the minister to what extent the farming community have

expressed a desire for legislation upon this matter. The farmers know better than anybody else whether they need this legislation or not. I have not heard from the Minister of Agriculture whether there has been an expression of opinion by a majority of the farmers of Canada for legislation along this line. If there has been, then It is right that we shall have legislation ; but I am inclined to think it will be found that there has'not been anything like a universal expression of opinion in favour of legislation on the subject of seeds. I am clearly of opinion-and I hope I shall be able to press this view on the attention of the House from time to time-that we are too apt hastily to introduce legislation of this kind. I do not think we sufficiently appreciate the fact that the farmers of Canada are quite capable of looking after some of their own business themselves ; and I think there has been too great a tendency, not only in this parliament, but in other legislatures, to interfere with the farmer and treat him as if he ought to be in leading strings, and if his conduct required to be regulated. This measure, as has been said, necessitates an inspection, and inspection entails expense and patronage and other evils which do not result beneficially to the farming community. I am not at all opposed to this resolution passing; but I want before the Act passes, to have some definite statement from the minister, and some indication from the farming community as to their will in the matter.


Charles Bernhard Heyd: I regard the Bill before the House as one of the most important that we have had before us for a long time. When the government presents a railway Bill involving the expediture of millions of dollars it is regarded as a very important matter. But when a Bill of this kind comes before us, it appears trivial; and yet associated with it are facts of such tremendous consequence that it is very important that we should consider it carefully and deliberately. This Bill is intended to prevent the fouling of the soil throughout the length and breadth of this country. I am surprised when I go through the country to see the number of farms completely covered with noxious weeds, which could have been entirely prevented if the care which we now intend to exercise had been exercised ten or fifteen years ago. The mere fact that the farming community have not asked for this Bill does not prove that the necessity for it does not exist. I am surprised at the ignorance which exists throughout this country upon the subject of seeds. That was brought to my attention a short time ago by a visit which I paid to the seed experimental station which we have in Ottawa. The necessity for this very Bill was there strongly impressed upon my mindi. Farmers often buy seeds at $5 or $6 a bushel when they are really paying about $30 a bushel for the fertile seeds; they be-Mr. LENNOX.
ing loaded with twenty or thirty varieties of noxious weeds. It is to prevent this that this Bill is introduced; and before it passes the final stage, it would be well for hon. gentlemen who are interested in the matter to visit the seed-inspecting station and acquaint themselves with what this Bill is intended to do for the country.
Resolution reported, read the first and second time, and agreed to.
INQUIRIES, &c.
On the Orders of the Day being called :


Mr. E. F. CLARKE.: Might I ask the lion. Minister of Railways and Canals if he has yet received from the commissioner he appointed to inquire into the cause of the accident at West Lorne, the report he was instructed to make ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Yes, I have received the report to-day, and I am having it copied.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Will the hon. gentleman lay the report on the Table ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Yes, I will do so.


Robert Laird Borden: I moved some time ago for the correspondence between this government and the government of the North-west Territories on the subject of provincial autonomy. I do not think the papers have yet been brought down. I also moved some time ago for a return of all persons in the North-west Territories who had been naturalized within a certain period of years. I believe the return has been sent forward, but it has not been brought down.


The MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE.: I will bring the matter to the attention of the acting minister.


John Dowsley Reid: I would like to draw Mi-. Speaker's attention to the telephone service which we have in the House of Commons. We have downstairs a long distance telephone which I use considerably, as I do at home, and I must say that the service we get here is disgraceful. In saying this I am expressing both my own sentiments and those of a great many other members. If a person is called in half an hour, he is doing well. I would like the Bell Telephone Company, if it is at all possible, to give us a long distance service in the House of Commons at least equal to the poorest that they give in other places.
Mr. SPEAKER, I shall be pleased to call the attention of the telephone company to the service, and I hope they will remedy the defect which the hon. gentleman complains of.



CANADIAN NORTHERN RAILWAY-GUARANTEE OP SECURITIES.

[Stage Direction]
House again in committee on the proposed resolutions (page 4363) regarding aid to the Canadian Northern Railway Company.	.
On resolution 2,
The MINISTER OP RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I observe that some words have been left out at the end of this resolution- I do not know whether in the copying in my office or as I received the resolution from the Department of Justice-which leaves it in a very incomplete form. You will observe that the resolution reads :	Provided
also that the said mortgage shall be a charge next after a first charge of $13,000 per mile (to be created by the company) on that part of the said Prince Albert Branch. But the description of the part is left out, and I propose to add these words: From the eastern end of the 100 miles hereby aided to Erwood.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Would it not be practicable to provide in these resolutions that the company, whose bonds are to be guaranteed by the government, should pay a larger rate of interest than that at which the government borrows the money ? The company could not borrow at less than 4 per cent, and it would not be unreasonable, in. view of the responsibility we assume, to ask that it should pay that rate for the use of the money. If that course were pursued, the government could invest the 1 per cent as a sinking fund, and in the course of fifty years the accumulations would wipe out the indebtedness. It would not be a hardship to the promoters to be asked to pay interest at the rate at 4 per cent, and provision might be made that the sum at the credit of tbe sinking fund should be handed over to them whenever they were prepared to relieve the government from the responsibility. I would like to ask the hon. minister if he has considered the advisability of such a provision ?


The MINISTER OP RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: The hon. member will observe that what we are here doing is to provide a government guarantee on bonds to be issued by this company bearing 3 per cent interest. If the government were to conclude to charge an additional rate to the company, they would do that, not in these bonds, but in the further mortgage security contract, or arrangement that might be made with the company. It would not answer to place the rate at 4 per cent in these resolutions, because the bonds we are guaranteeing bear interest at the rate of 3 per cent, and to do what the hon. gentleman suggests would probably place the value of the bonds at a premium, which would not be very-advisable. I am free to say that it would be quite open for us later, as perhaps one of the conditions to 160
be embodied in the general mortgage which we propose to take upon all the undertakings of the company-it would be open for us, if thought desirable, to put in that document such a clause as the hon. member suggested, and I would ask him to raise that point when the Bill is before the House.


Edward Frederick Clarke: The reason I asked the hon. minister for information on that point is because when this matter was first discussed throughout the corridors and about the House, I understood that what the government intended doing was to guarantee the interest for a period of years on a certain sum of money per mile. But I find in the fifth clause that the government assume responsibility for the principal as well as the interest. That is a different proposition altogether. I think it goes without saying that the government can borrow the money at 3 per cent, and it would not be unreasonable to make the proprietors of the road pay 4 per cent. Suppose the government advanced $9,000,000 for the purposes of construction, on an annual payment of 4 per cent interest, the government, borrowing money at 3 per cent, would have $90,000 per year to dispose of, which, invested annually, in fifty years would amount to more than sufficient to wipe out the debt. I would just as soon see the government borrow the $9,000,000 and hand it over according as the work of construction proceeded, on such terms as I have taken the liberty of suggesting.


Hon. Mr. HAGGART.: I do not know where Erwood is. But if I understood rightly the branch from Prince Albert to where it joins the main line is about 180 miles in length.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: About that.


John Graham Haggart: On which the government guarantee $13,000 per mile for 100 miles, and that the road on which this guarantee is to be given is to be built from Prince Albert towards the point of junction. That is the 100 miles which is aided by the government. Is Erwood at the end of the 100 miles or the point of departure from the Canadian Northern Railway ?


The MINISTER OP RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Erwood is now the terminus of what is known as the Prince Albert Branch and is 180 miles from Prince Albert. There is an intervening mileage there of eighty miles between the easterly point to which we are aiding the railway from Prince Albert and Erwood. Upon those eighty miles the company will be free to make its line as a first charge up to $13,000 per mile.


John Graham Haggart: The hon. minister has the location of the road in his department ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: It runs almost due west.


John Graham Haggart: And the location from Prince Albert down to the point of junction ? Could he tell what the gradients and curvatures going east and west of the proposed line are going to be-the maximum?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I do not think it is more than one-half of 1 per cent-not quite that.


John Graham Haggart: If I remember rightly, we made it a condition on the Canadian Pacific Railway from Winnipeg to Lake Superior that the gradients should not be greater than twenty-six feet to the mile one way and fifty-two feet the other way. It is very important in the construction of a railway, which is intended to carry freight cheaply, that the gradients and curvatures should be provided and put in the contract by the government.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: We are going to do that.


Robert Laird Borden: What is the reason for the provision in the latter part of the second section ?	' Shall be a first
charge next after a first charge of $13,000 per mile (to be created by the company) on that part of the said Prince Albert Branch from the eastern end of the 100 miles hereby aided to Erwood.'


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: They must be afforded some opportunity to raise the money with which to construct this eighty miles-assuming it to be eighty, which is as nearly as I can state the number. They are getting no government aid, the hon. gentleman will observe, and they have to build eighty miles, and when they do build they will require to encumber to the extent of $13,000 per mile.


Robert Laird Borden: Have they authority to do that ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Yes, they have power under their general Act. I trust I make myself clear.


Robert Laird Borden: I think, I must have missed something that the hon. gentleman said before, for I do not understand the matter yet. The government are to guarantee bonds for 720 miles of railway, roughly speaking. Is it a portion of that 720 miles ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: And the eighty miles farther west ? No, there is no part of that. Perhaps I might make it a little clearer to my hon. friend (Mr. Borden, Halifax). The government is more concerned as to the building of the 100 miles eastwardly from Prince Albert than as to the building of the 80 miles further to carry it to Erwood, for the reason that there Is a continuous and growing settlement, a settlement of long stand-Hon. Mr. HAGGART.
ing, extending along this line, for 90 odd miles. The government has been so pressed by the people who have been looking for a railway in that locality that we have felt ourselves justified in making provision whereby that stretch of 100 miles should be promptly built. And we understand from the company that it is their intention as speedily as possible not only to complete that 100 miles which they contract with us to build, but to complete the other 80 miles, making the connection complete from Erwood to Prince Albert-completing the Prince Albert branch so called. We have, therefore, left the opening to enable them to place a mortgage to the extent of $13,000 a mile upon this 80 miles. When they are in a position to do it they will go on with the work, but, in the meantime, subject to that reserve right to them, we take an encumbrance covering the whole, the same as we do the rest of the undertaking.


John Graham Haggart: If the settlers in that section are anxious to have the road why does the hon. minister make the line of railway complete from the main line, instead of being built from Prince Albert 100 miles down, and leave them with an 80 mile gap reaching from the main line. And, while I am on my feet, I would ask, is there any subsidy in land or money from the local government or this government on this 80 miles of road ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: No. The hon. gentleman will recollect the fact that this mileage is all in the North-west and none of it in Manitoba. They are not getting any land grant for the line from Erwood west to Prince Albert. We are giving them no aid whatever except what is provided in these resolutions.


John Graham Haggart: I did not mean from Erwood to Prince Albert but from Erwood to the main line.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: They have it complete to Erwood.


John Graham Haggart: I see. The hon. minister promised, when this matter was last under discussion to lay on the Table a statement showing the extent of road of the Canadian Northern already built, and the amount of rolling stock on the road that is to be given as further security for the advance proposed by these resolutions.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Of course, the hon. gentleman understands that that is information not in my possession ; I can only give It as it may be furnished me. I shall not be able to have it to day, but I will have it by the time the Bill comes up.


John Graham Haggart: That will do perfectly well, if the hon. gentleman will have it the day before the Bill is introduced,

and also a map showing the location of the Canadian Northern and this branch


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Does the hon. gentleman mean the branch from the main line ?


John Graham Haggart: Yes, the main line and the branch to Prince Albert, that the hon. gentleman proposes to subsidize. We wish to see it on the map.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I think that, perhaps. I could manage to bring a small sketch map.


John Graham Haggart: That will do.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: The hon. gentleman (Hon. Mr. Haggart) is, perhaps not aware that the Swan River section was at one time supposed to be intended as the main line, and when they made that line to Erwood and started to build to Prince Albert, it was expected that that line would be continued on to Edmonton. But, two or three years ago a change was made in their plans. A shorter route to Edmonton has been determined upon. They start out from Grandview and build direct to Edmonton.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
At six o'clock the House took recess.
After Eecess.
House resumed at eight o'clock.


[Stage Direction]
House in committee on Bill (No. 131) to incorporate the Marconi Wireless Telegraph Company of Canada, Limited.-Mr. Mc-Isaae.
On section 24,
Mr. BARKER.: I call the attention of the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Railways to the wording of this section. This company is formed under section 15, to conduct the business of telegraphic communication not only by wireless, but by any other system, and by section 24 this company is authorized to acquire and deal with the capital stock, shares and so on, of any corporation having objects similar to the objects of this company. The telegraph companies of Canada are just as important as regards monopolies as any other corporation, and hence this section is of very great importance. I think it is time that the government should take care that clauses are 'not inserted in Bills of this kind that are likely to, or may create monopolies. The question arose years ago with regard to railways. It was found that when the parliament of Canada inserted provisions in various charters to prevent one railway 160}
company from absorbing another, shrewd business men soon found that it was quite possible to get the control of another railway without any absorption of it. By acquiring a majority of the stock and electing a board of directors a railway company desiring to monopolize the business of the country could just as effectively control the competing company as if it were actually amalgamated by Act of parliament. Everything that applies to railway companies in that respect applies equally to telegraph companies. It may be all very well for gentlemen to think that the Marconi system is confined to wireless telegraphy, but section 15 provides that they can carry on the business of wireless telegraphy or telegraphy by any other system.


Mr. BELCOURT.: Section 15 was struck out of the Bill.


Samuel Barker: Even if it is struck out, why should this company have power to acquire the stock of any other company chartered for similar purposes ?


Mr. WADE.: It is put in every charter.


Samuel Barker: In the Railway Act, by section 276, no railway company can employ any of its funds for the acquisition of stock in another railway company, and by section 277, a heavy penalty is imposed upon the directors of any railway company which authorizes the purchase of stock in the shares of another company. What is the distinction between a telegraph company and a railway company, so far as the public utility is concerned ? I contend, as a matter of principle, that any company that is created by this parliament for the purpose of any public utility should not be authorized by a general provision of this kind to acquire the control of another company of a similar character.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: This subject was fully discussed before the Railway Committee in connection with this Bill, and it was not the opinion of the committee that the clause was objectionable. After all, it is only a question of means. If any company has the means to obtain control of the stock of another company, it could accomplish its aim indirectly, if not directly. It is practically impossible, by any known method of legislation, to prevent that sort of thing being done. But after all, is there any reason why there should be a positive bar placed against a combination of two or three telegraph companies if they wish to combine ? They are not monopolies in a vefy large sense, but only in a very limited sense. My hon. friend puts them upon the same footing as railways, but there is a broad distinction. You can multiply telegraph lines, but not railways. You can not lay railways down and operate them without covering a good deal of ground, and without very seriously interfering with

the public, and the use of property in various ways. But telegraph lines may be strung all over the country and no serious hazards would arise or injury be done. It was not thought in the committee that there was any sound objection against allowing the clause to pass, particularly as it is one which is almost invariably included in any Bill which is granted for the same purposes as this.


Samuel Barker: I would like to say, in answer to the hon. member for Ottawa, that when I said section 15, I was mistaken in the number, and what I intended referring to is section 12, which allows this company to carry on the business of telegraphic communication by means of wireless or other system of telegraph. This covers all telegraphic business of any kind in the Dominion. With regard to what the hon. Minister of Railways has said, I would reply that so desirable was it considered by parliament to prevent one railway company from acquiring the control of another by the purchase of its stock or the majority of its stock, that two clauses were inserted in the general Railway Act to prevent anything of the kind being done unless in particular instances expressely authorized by statute. These clauses were passed after full consideration and after a great many evils had occurred in this country through the acquisition and control of one railway by another, contrary to the intention of the Dominion and provincial legislatures. Section 276 of the Railway Act expressly provides that no railway company shall expend its funds in the acquisition of the shares of any other railway ; and in order to get over the difficulty which the hon. Minister of Railways has pointed out, this provision was put in the Act:
Every director of a railway company who knowingly permits the funds of any such company to be applied in violation of the next preceding sections shall incur a penalty (f $1,000 for each such violation.
Therefore, every railway director who authorizes the purchase of a share of stock in any other railway company renders himself liable to a fine of $1,000. It was a serious evil which caused such a provision to be inserted in the general Railway Act ; and when we are considering Bills of this kind-whether dealing with railways, telegraphs or telephones, and we have heard lately a great deal about telegraphs and telephones-we should take care not to authorize what is so particularly guarded against in the Railway Act.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: There is a difference of opinion on the subject, and the hon. gentleman is entitled to his opinion, but other people are equally entitled to theirs. I did not; suggest that, in the face of that clause in the Railway Act which the hon. gentleman has read, a railway company could out of its own Hon. Mr. BLAIR.
means buy stock in any other company, but I did say that in this particular case there are large and wealthy stockholders who, if they felt that it would be a very great advantage to them to acquire the control of one or more telegraph companies, could take their means and buy the stock and operate these other companies in co-operation with the one we are now incorporating. There is no law you could pass which would prevent that being done. It is only one remove farther away. If these things are in the interest of capitalists, they will accomplish them in spite of any legislation we can pass. It is quite true that the Railway Act contains a general clause of the character the hon. gentleman has stated, but while that is the case, what do we find ? There is not a Bill that comes up for the incorporation of a railway company in which we do not find a clause authorizing the acquiring of other roads.


Samuel Barker: By name. The hon. gentleman insists in every case that the name of the company to be acquired shall be put in the Bill, so that the committee may consider whether that particular company shall be amalgamated or not.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: That is true, but all the same there is the general Act which imposes a penalty for doing that. I think, without a single exception, where the other company can be named, the company wishing to purchase is allowed to do so. There are only, after all, one or two great institutions which we would not allow to combine their interests. It is thought to be in the general interests that the larger roads should buy up the smaller ones, because they can work them to better advantage, give better service and afford better accommodation to the general public. In the case of the wireless company now under discussion, it became clear to the committee that Mr. Marconi might find it necessary, in order to give the public a better service, to make connections with telegraph lines. One can very well conceive that there might he obstacles raised to their working unless they had the power of using their means to obtain the control of some other lines which they could connect with their ocean cables, and it would be very unwise for us to say that they should not do any other business than a wireless telegraph business. They might, in the ordinary course, require to do ordinary telegraph business. The extent to which they can do that you cannot very well limit. But you can scarcely conceive of their going in to buy out all the telegraphs of Canada. If they failed to give the public a satisfactory service, how long would it be before other telegraph companies would be incorporated and compete with them for public patronage ? I think that we are magnifying the possibility of any ill effects resulting from legislation of this kind. While I would not hesi-

tate to place every obstacle in the way of any amalgamation of these great interests which could be detrimental to the public interest, I do not see why we should place any obstacle in the way, when the result would not be harmful.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: If we do allow amalgamation, it seems to me that we should make provision to prevent what takes place every day in connection with the two telegraph companies which amalgamated in Canada some years ago ; I refer to the Dominion and the Montreal Telegraph Companies. The Dominion line was projected for the purpose of giving competition to the public. It succeeded for a length of time, but getting somewhat financially embar-assed, the- Montreal Company got control of it, and what has been the result ? One company now controls the lines of both companies and does the work of both. But if you wish to send a message to a certain point, and go to the office of the Montreal Company you are told that the office at the other point is a Dominion office. The result is although one company controls both offices and manages both, you have to pay a double rate, because you are told that the message has to go over both lines. Had these companies remained separate, there is no doubt that both companies would have offices at these various places, and you would save the double expense which is now incurred. It seems to me that there ought to be some provision to prevent that kind of thing. That is one of the evils that result from amalgamation.


Fletcher Bath Wade: When this Bill was before the Railway Committee, it was very carefully considered, especially this clause in its bearing on the other parts of the Bill. At the suggestion of some members of the committee, certain words in this clause were struck out, so that it was left in exactly the same shape as the clauses usually put in Bills of this sort. There was before the House last session a Bill relating to the Canadian Northern Telegraph Company. It was very vigorously contested by many members of this House, and it was referred by the Railway Committee to a sub-committee. There it was considered and discussed, and finally it was reported to this House ; and that Bill contains exactly the same clause as this. I understand that it is a rule of the House, when a Bill is reported from the Railway Committee, not to disturb it unless for some very good reason. If we have granted a similar clause to other companies, I do not see why it should not be granted to this one. I do not apprehend any of the difficulties which the hon. member for Hamilton suggests, and I agree with the hon. Minister of Railways that it is absolutely impossible to prevent the amalgamation of these companies. I think we might very well adopt a model clause on this point, and apply it to every company.


Robert Laird Borden: I hardly agree with the view entertained by the minister that because you cannot prevent one company controlling another, that is a good reason why this clause should be retained. Of course, you cannot prevent men getting stock in different companies, and in that way controlling them ; but if that control cannot be prevented by legislation, that is no reason you should expressly authorize something still worse. A director of one company may acquire a controlling interest in another, but that is a very different thing from the case where the company of which he is a director obtains such control ; and the very best reason against the hon. gentlemans argument is the general clause to which he refers. What is the use of having that clause in the statute if the hon. gentleman's argument is correct ? If it is a sound argument, it is a good ground for striking out the clause in another measure that we were discussing at six o'clock for preventing the Canadian Northern Railway from amalgamating with the Canadian Pacific Railway ; but I can scarcely think he would use that as an argument for eliminating that clause. 1 think the point to which the hon. member for Hamilton has drawn attention, is a very important one, and the committee should pause before assenting to a clause of that kind in this Bill.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Samuel Barker: I beg to move that section 24 be struck out.
Amendment negatived :	Yeas, 21 ; nays,
38.


Robert Laird Borden: I would like to call the attention of the minister to section 22. That seems to give power to the company to enter upon lands and take possession of them without in the first place paying compensation. Is it desirable to give these special powers of expropriation ? Why would it not be better in all these cases to refer to the terms of the General Expropriation Act. There is such an Act on the statute-book, or there used to be. I know there was a good deal of amendment to the Act in connection with the establishment of the Exchequer Court, but surely the Act itself remains. Why is it necessary to give these special powers of expropriation to these companies ? Will the hon. minister say that the rights of landowners are properly preserved under this section ? The company may enter into possession of the land without giving any security, and have the question of compensation determined afterwards. That is not very fair to the landowners. The general rule of expropriation is that the compensation shall be fixed and the money paid into court before the company expropriating shall enter into possession of the land. The terms of this section are very comprehensive, and, though I have not had the opportunity of

reading it very carefully, I should think it gave power to enter upon lands and to pay afterwards, and payment need not be made until, in ease of disagreement, there has been an arbitration to fix the compensation.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: The two clauses of section 22 as we have them here give powers that are to be found ordinarily in legislation of this character. I agree with what the hon. gentleman (Mr. Borden, Halifax) has said that they could be much improved, not only in the particulars to which he referred, but in others. But this has been the course of legislation. Two or three questions were referred to in the committee when the matter was pointed out, and this is one that we would probably do well to consider and have it provided for by some general legislation. I am not sure, but I think the same provision is in the Act relating to public works. I know they read the sections from other Acts.


Robert Laird Borden: It is far better, It seems to me, both in the interest of the public and in the interest of the company that you should have a carefully thought out Act for the purpose of expropriation, and when any company comes to this parliament and asks to acquire lands by expropriation, let it be referred to the general Act for that purpose. It is not in the interests of the companies to confer powers in sections, such as these, that are not very carefully worded. They are fruitful in litigation, and sometimes may not be in the interest of the public, and result in general dissatisfaction. For my part, I do not see why reference could not have been made either to the Railway Act or to the Act now on the statute-book, called the Expropriation Act, where you could find much more carefully thought-out provisions than these expressed in section 22.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL (Hon. Sir William Mulock).: I do not know whether the general law controls under section 22, but, if not in my opinion, section 22 should not be sanctioned by this House. Under this section it is provided-
The new company may enter upon the lands of His Maiesty and of any person or corporation-


Robert Laird Borden: ' His Majesty ' is struck out.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: But the rest stands. So, section 22 would provide :
The new company may enter upon the lands of any person or corporation whatsoever, and survey the same, and set out and ascertain such parts thereof as it thinks necessary and proper for the construction and erection of the works of the new company or its lines of telegraph or system, and take possession of and use the same for such purpose.
And they can construct works and fell trees on the property. But I see no pro-


Robert Laird Borden: vision here requiring security for damages, tender in advance or any of the safeguards thrown around the owners of land when expropriation under the system is sought. Under the railway system, an order of court may be obtained authorizing possession in advance of payment, but only upon the court ordering security to be given. I sec no such security provided for in this Bill. For one, I could not sanction such a provision as this. This company may or may not be solvent; and I am dealing with it in the abstract. But I do not think we should sanction the principle oT any corporation or person taking away another's property without indemnifying him in advance. Who is going to look after the rights of individuals if this parliament does not ?


An hon. MEMBER.: Nine o'clock.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Would it not be well, Mr. Chairman, before you leave the Chair, to refer this Bill back to the committee to have it further considered ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE (Hon. Charles Fitzpatrick).: It can be done without that. We can make applicable to this company certain provisions of the General Expropriation Act.
Progress reported.



CONSIDERED IN COMMITTEE-THIRD READINGS.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 96) respecting the Kettle River Valley Railway Company-Mr. German.
Bill (No. 122) respecting the Rathbun Company.-Mr. Harty.	,
Bill (No. 195) for the relief of James Reid Steele.-Mr. McCreary.
Bill (No. 196) for the relief of William Allen.-Mr. McCreary.
Bill (No. 97) respecting the Manitoulin and North Shore Railway Company.-Mr. Dyment.
Bill (No. 73) to incorporate the Ontario and Quebec Power Company.-Mi-. Beleourt.

[Stage Direction]
House again in committee on the proposed resolution (page 4363) regarding aid to the Canadian Northern Railway Company.
John Graham Haggart: When the committee rose at six o'clock, I was asking some questions with regard to this road. How far is Erwood north of the main line of the Canadian Northern Railway ?


Mr. DAVIS.: I have here a map which I shall be glad to show the hon. gentleman (Hon. Mr. Haggart) and which will give him all that information.


John Graham Haggart: Now that we understand it, this point, Erwood, is on the

old line of the Hudson Bay Railway, 320 miles from where that road connects with the Canadian Northern. Then it is virtually not a branch at all of the Canadian Northern ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: It is called the Prince Albert branch.


John Graham Haggart: It is an extension of the old Hudson Bay Railway. There was a branch from the Hudson Bay Railway that diverged to the west, to Erwood. The Hudson Bay Railway was subsidized by a land grant from the local government. From reading the resolutions and from the observations of the Minister of Railways, I was led to believe that this Prince Albert branch was within 180 miles of the main line and intended to connect with it. It does not connect at all with the main line of the Canadian Northern, it connects with the old Hudson Bay Railway which crosses the main line of the Canadian Northern 320 miles from Erwood. I asked the hon. member for Saskatchewan (Mr. Davis), and he told me that Erwood was 320 miles along the Hudson Bay Railway.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: The Canadian Northern as originally laid out, deflects to the west from Erwood and when completed will extend to Prince Albert. That was part of the original m'ain line, "and that is what I stated to the hon. gentleman. But when they looked the ground over, they started out from the Gilbert Plains district and constructed to Grandview, and they are now proposing to make that their main line through to Edmonton. This line, however, is called the Prince Albert branch, and it is part of the Canadian Northern system, and when it is built from Prince Albert will be part of the Canadian Northern system from Prince Albert through the Swan River district and down to where it touches the main line.


John Graham Haggart: The original intention of building the Canadian Northern Railway was to utilize that portion of the Hudson Bay Railway which turned westerly and went over to Erwood. But the present line which the hon. gentleman is asking this country to subsidize is not a new line. From the Gilbert Plains up to Edmonton where it crosses the Hudson, Bay Railway is 320 miles, and 420 miles from Prince Albert. What I understood from the resolutions was that this branch from the Canadian Northern is a branch from the Canadian Northern to connect with Prince Albert.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: That brought you to Erwood, whatever the distance is.


John Graham Haggart: No, I understood that it brought us to the line of railway which the hon. gentleman is proposing to
subsidize. Instead of that, we are not subsidizing part of the main line to connect with Prince Albert, but we are subsidizing an extension of the Hudson Bay Railway which extends from Erwood up to Prince Albert, not a branch at all of the Canadian Northern, because if it was a branch of the Canadian Northern it would go direct to that railway and reach it within 180 miles. Instead of that it does not reach it within 420 miles; that is why we are) misled by the resolutions. Why, does not the hon. gentleman, when he puts these resolutions on the paper, bring us a map showing the road which he proposes to subsidize, so that we can understand him ? I do not think there is an hon. gentleman in the House but understood that this Prince Albert branch was a branch of the Canadian Northern.


Mr. SCOTT.: So it is.


John Graham Haggart: It is a branch of the Canadian Northern Railway, it is an extension of the old Hudson Bay railroad.


Thomas Walter Scott: It connects with the Northern.


John Graham Haggart: It connects with Erwood.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: This is the Canadian Northern all the way.


John Graham Haggart: But in order to reach the Canada Northern it goes 320 mines from that point.


Thomas Osborne Davis: I will explain the whole situation. The original line of the Canadian Northern Railway followed that colonization road that was' supposed to run to the Saskatchewan, and which was subsidized with land grant by the late government and a guarantee of bonds by the local government, and was called the Hudson Bay road. After they had been working on that road for several years, and since I came to this House I think it was, the Canadian Northern people came back here and got a charter to build a branch from this Hudson Bay road running towards Prince Albert, and as a matter of fact to the Pacific oceaix They have built that road farther than Erwood, but they do not claim to have done so. After looking over the ground some two years ago they came to the conclusion that they could get a more direct and better route by branching off below Dauphin at Gilbert Plains and running in a direct line as closely as they could to Edmonton. On account of the first road having been projected through the Carrot River Valley, people have crowded into that district until there is hardly a homestead left to be taken up that is of any value. The railway lands are all sold. There is a congestion and the people must have some way of getting their produce out. Some of the

farmers informed me last winter that they had a portion of three years crop on hand that they could not get out and that in consequence they required this road. For that reason, I suppose the government is seeking to give this assistance towards helping these people to build that road, because if they do not get the road the people will leave.


John Graham Haggart: Would the hon. gentleman tell me how far the line of the Canadian Northern extends 7


Thomas Osborne Davis: The part of the road, that is the Hudson's Bay road, is already built to the north-east corner of the province, and there is a portion of the road which runs past Erwood which is built.


John Graham Haggart: How far is it from Erwood down to Gilbert Plains-320 miles 7


Thomas Osborne Davis: I do not know the exact mileage, but it is a long distance.


John Graham Haggart: Then, I was perfectly correct in my statement. The proposed Canadian Northern Railway will run from Gilbert Plains to Edmonton. This proposed branch is a branch from Prince Albert to Erwood. We were led to believe that there would be a branch of the proposed line to Edmonton which we are assisting constructed to Prince Albert, but instead of that it is an extension of the old, abandoned line of the Hudson's Bay Railway, or the Canadian Northern Railway, as it was afterwards called, and which they are now extending to Prince Albert.


Thomas Walter Scott: That is fair enough.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: And perhaps the hon. gentleman may be aware that legislation of this very parliament has declared all these railways to belong to the system of the Canadian Northern. The railway which he describes as the old Hudson's Bay Railway is a part of the Canadian Northern Railway.


John Graham Haggart: I understand that fully.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AN CANALS.: And was intended to be the main line.


John Graham Haggart: It is abandoned as the main line now.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: After they had considered the question of getting to Edmonton by the shortest route they started off from their main line in the neighbourhood of Gilbert Plains and they have now built to Grandview.


Matthew Henry Cochrane: Do the committee understand that this road has been bonused by land grants from the local government 7


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: There are no land grants to-Mr. DAVIS.
wards this road that we have in contemplation now.


Thomas Osborne Davis: There are no land grants at all.


Matthew Henry Cochrane: Not to the original Hudson's Bay line 7


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: This is no part of the original Hudson's Bay line. We have looked into the question of land grants and I am in a position to state that there is no land grant at all applicable to this portion of the line we are covering under subsidy or any portion of it beyond Erwood.


John Graham Haggart: Or through Erwood 7


Thomas Osborne Davis: No.


John Graham Haggart: Was there not a subsidy by this government or the Manitoba government 7


Thomas Osborne Davis: Within the boundaries of Manitoba there was a land subsidy by this government and also a guarantee of bonds by the Manitoba government.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: No, by the government of Canada.


John Graham Haggart: How far is Erwood outside of the boundary of Manitoba 7


Thomas Osborne Davis: Between 'twenty-five and thirty miles.


John Graham Haggart: Then, there are only twenty-five or thirty miles of the road that have not been subsidized by the local government up to Erwood, and by this government, from which there is a land grant. What I am complaining of is that the resolution speaks of this branch as a branch of the road which we are pretending to subsidize.


Thomas Walter Scott: So it is. It is a long branch.


John Graham Haggart: The Hudson's Bay road is built to the boundary of Manitoba. It is extended up to Erwood twenty-five or thirty miles beyond the boundary of Manitoba, making 320 miles in all. It was intended to extend the Canadian Northern Railway by extending that road up to Edmonton. The Hudson's Bay road has been abandoned altogether and the proposed resolution is for the purpose of giving so much per mile for a road from Gilbert Plains onwards.


Thomas Walter Scott: And to extend the road from Erwood to Prince Albert.


John Graham Haggart: From Gilbert Plains to Edmonton and besides that a branch to Prince Albert, but we find that it is the extension of the old Canadian Northern Railway to Prince Albert. We supposed that it was a branch line of this new road to Prince Albert that the hon. minis-

ter proposed to subsidize. He is not only subsidizing the main line to aid in its construction through that country to Edmonton, but he is subsidizing, to the extent of ,$13,000 a mile, a road which is to connect with that abandoned branch line which was proposed to be built towards the Pacific to assist in the extension of that line to Prince Albert.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I hope the hon. gentleman is not allowing himself to run away with the idea that this is an abandoned railway. It is not an abandoned railway; it is a live railway.


John Graham Haggart: I did not say it was an abandoned railway. I said it was abandoned as the main line of railway. The hon. minister said that they had abandoned that portion, that they had intended to construct it as a part of the Canadian Northern Railway, that they had abandoned their design, and started a new road from Gilbert Plains up to Edmonton ; so that this instead of being a branch of the road that we are proposing to subsidize at the present moment, or a branch of the main line of the road, is an extension of the abandoned Hudson's Bay road. Whatever justification there may be for the expenditure of $13,000 a mile on the main line, there is no justification for the extension of what was proposed to be the main line through Prince Albert and then abandoned. That is my argument.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: What difference does it make to the section of the country proposed to be traversed by this hundred miles branch, whether it is an extension or branch of the main line, or whether it should have been the main line itself '! In either case it will give railway facilities to the district in question and whether it is a main line or a branch of the main line is a matter of no importance. If it is meritorious to build the railway there, does the hon. gentleman say that it should not be built because it is not a part of the main line ?


John Graham Haggart: We are giving an abnormal subsidy to this road.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: No subsidy at all.


John Graham Haggart: It is virtually. a subsidy.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: Not at all.


John Graham Haggart: You may call it anything you like, but it is a subsidy to the road. You give them a grant of so much per mile payable in fifty years and pay 3 per cent interest to the company upon the construction of the road. You may call it what you like; I call it a subsidy to the road.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: The company are engaging to pay three per cent.


John Graham Haggart: You guarantee the bonds at the rate of three per cent to the extent of $13,000 per mile, and you promise to pay a subsidy, the total amount to be paid at the end of fifty years. You become responsible for it. You guarantee the amount of $13,000 per mile and you


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I am afraid the hon. gentleman is confused.


John Graham Haggart: I will read the resolution. You offer the guarantee of this country to the extent of $13,000 a mile, or 3 per cent interest on it, and you guarantee to pay the amount at the end of fifty years. If the company do not meet their obligations the government of this country pledges itself to pay the amount. That is a departure from the usual system of subsidies.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: A good and a wise departure.


John Graham Haggart: I thought the minister justified it because this was the main line between the east and the Pacific coast.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS ANU CANALS.: I never said a word to that effect.


John Graham Haggart: Is it the intention of the government to apply this principle to every branch line in Manitoba and the North-west, instead of giving a cash grant of $3,200 or $6,400 a mile, as the case may be ? Here you are giving this guarantee to a road running into Prince Albert, which has already a railway running into it, and which the Canadian Pacific Railway is pledged to reach with another railway within three years.


Thomas Osborne Davis: At that rate of going they have been pledged for twenty years.


John Graham Haggart: The Canadian Pacific Railway only acquired that road two years ago, and since that they have laid rails on thirty-two miles, graded thirty miles further, and promised they would build thirty more, miles.


Thomas Osborne Davis: They abandoned their other Bill before they would undertake to build anything on that road.


John Graham Haggart: They abandoned it because you wanted to make it a condition that they would build on the other line pari passu with the line they were applying for a charter for. You are subsidizing a branch road to a town which already has a railway and which the Canadian Pacific Railway have also promised to reach.


Thomas Osborne Davis: The road that the Canadian Pacific Railway proposed to build is not within ninety miles of this other road.


John Graham Haggart: Does it not go to Prince Albert ?


Thomas Osborne Davis: What has that to do with it; how many railways are running into Montreal ?	.


John Graham Haggart: You have one road finished into Prince Albert, you have another promised to be finished in 1900, and you are subsidizing-the Postmaster General objects to the word ' subsidizing,' but I think it is the proper term-you are subsidizing another road to the extent of $13,000 a mile.


Thomas Osborne Davis: The settlers of that district will be much edified when they read the speech of the hon. gentleman (Hon. Air. Haggart) and know of his intense desire to give them relief. We have a railway that was built into Prince Albert when the Conservatives were in power, by a grant of our lands, and without any government control. Let me tell the hon. gentleman that the people are paying twenty-nine cents a hundred for hauling their wheat to Fort William, while the same company only charges the people of Edmonton thirty cents a hundred, although it is 600 miles further away. The road that charges such rates is not of much benefit to the people there. As the ex-minister (Hon. Air. Haggart) appears to be very friendly to the Canadian Pacific Railway, I may tell him that they haul wheat from Calgary to Fort William for twenty-six cents, while they charge the people of Prince Albert, who are 300 miles nearer to Fort William, twenty-nine cents. I cannot understand that kind of long haul and short haul arrangement. The Manitoba and North-western Railway has been projecting towards Prince Albert for twenty years, and not one shovel full of dirt was turned on it for ten years, until last year, when the Canadian Pacific Railway were forced to pledge themselves to do that work.


Audit Act.   A@: How long have the Canadian Pacific Railway had that railway ?


Thomas Osborne Davis: They had it long enough to be sixty miles in default on construction. When the Canadian Pacific Railway took over the charter they were under an obligation to build twenty miles a. year, and they had it for three years without doing anything, until, when they applied for an extension of time the committee insisted that they should build a certain portion of the line. We have no pledge that they will turn another shovel of dirt for the next four years, and the very best proof that they will not is that when we made the proposition the other day that they should build as much towards Prince Albert as towards Edmonton, they withdrew their Bill rather than do it. Now, coming to the Canadian Northern Railway from Erwood towards Prince Albert, and you may call it a branch line or the main line, if you like- Mr. DAVIS.
even supposing the Canadian Pacific Railway road was built, this Erwood road is 100 miles away from the Canadian Pacific Railway in one place and sixty miles further on the proposed extension, it is ninety miles away, and, of course, as they are both running to Prince Albert, they have to centre there. Both roads are needed in that district. For 100 miles from Prince Albert eastward on that road there is a thick settlement and there is not a homestead to be taken within ten miles on each side of the road that is of any use. It is all settled. Does the ex-Minister of Railways propose to force the people to move out of that fertile country because they cannot market their produce ? Talk about a carping policy, but that is a tu-penny ha-penny policy indeed. If these people do not get a railroad they will have to abandon their homes or go to some place where there is a railway. If the Canadian Pacific Railway do build a line there it will serve one portion of the country, but the road we have already serves a different portion of the country hundreds of miles away. This road which the government now propose to assist with a guarantee of bonds is to serve a different portion of the country entirely. The people have been there for a good many years, and they informed me, when I held a meeting there this year, that they had some grain stored in their granaries for three years, and if Alessrs. Mackenzie and Mann had not come there and bought some of it, they would have had to leave the country. If they do not get this road, they will not stay in that part of the country ; they will have to move out, though it is well known that this Carrot River valley is the finest and most fertile part of the whole country.


Air. PUTTEE.: Do I understand the hon. gentleman to say that all the sections within ten' miles on each side of the railway are taken up ?


Thomas Osborne Davis: That is, the homesteads that are fit to take.


Arthur W. Puttee: Does the hon. gentleman not think that ought to be sufficient guarantee to build a railway without going any further ?


Thomas Osborne Davis: If you can get them to do it. They cannot borrow money on that; but that is sufficient for the government to guarantee the bonds, because it shows that they will never be called on to pay one cent of interest. The settlers will get relief, and there will be no charge on the country.


Edward Frederick Clarke: I feel very friendly disposed towards this proposition. In view of the requirements of the western part of our country, I think it is absolutely necessary that additional railway accommodation should be provided; but I wish to tell the Minister of Railways and Canals, with the greatest possible respect, that I

have not yet been able, probably from lack of intelligence, to get this scheme into my mind. The other day when it was before the committee, we had to insist on the estimates of the railway engineers being placed before us. I think the minister also promised to bring down a map showing the location of the projected lines. We have what may be called a map, but it is not such a map as this committee should have before it to enable us to judge intelligently just what the scheme is. I am not opposing this resolution at all. I think that the firm! who are to receive this guarantee are worthy of the commendation and support of the people of Canada, and that in their struggle to construct a transcontinental line they should be reasonably assisted; but I think the proposition has beeii placed before us in anything but a businesslike shape, and if the discussion has been lengthened, it is not to impede the progress of the measure through the committee, but because members have been groping in the dark in their efforts to understand it. We shall have to give an account to our constituents of this measure, and as one member of the committee I must say that I have not been able, from the "discussion that has taken place, to inform myself as I think I should be informed in order to give an iidelligent vote upon it. I enter a protest against the meagre, half-baked way in which this matter is being presented to us. It is not fair to the committee or to those who have to give a vote upon a matter of such importance.


Thomas Walter Scott: I do not know whether I shall succeed, but I will attempt to simplify the matter to the hon. gentleman. The Canadian Northern Railway commences at Port Arthur, which is its eastern terminus, and runs to Winnipeg, and from there to Portage la Prairie, and thence north-westward. Perhaps the hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Roche) can tell us the exact distance from Portage la Prairie to the point where the road forks.


Mr. ROCHE (Marquette).: Thirty-five miles.


Thomas Walter Scott: At this point the road diverges. One fork runs to Erwood through the extreme north-west corner of the province of Manitoba, a distance of probably 200 miles from the junction of the forks. The other fork runs to Grandview. The proposition before the House is that both of these forks be aided-the Erwood line to Prince Albert


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Not to Prince Albert, but from Prince Albert for 100 miles to the east.


Edward Frederick Clarke: The hon. gentleman is not very well posted.


Thomas Walter Scott: I think the simpler way is to say that the Erwood line shall be extended to Prince Albert. The proposition is that the government shall aid the company in pushing the northern fork through to Prince Albert and the southern fork, which is spoken of as the main line, through to Edmonton.


William James Roche: I think the reason the committee has been misled is that the resolution has not been made plain enough. As the minister has explained it was the original intention to make this Erwood line the main line; but the company have made the Gilbert Plains line the main line because of its being shorter, and they have made the Erwood line a branch to Prince Albeit. I would ask the minister what estimate per mile has he that this road from Erwood will cost ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: $18,800 a mile.


William James Roche: I think that is a pretty high estimate for the construction of that line.


Thomas Osborne Davis: There is an expensive bridge


William James Roche: I am aware that Mr. Greeuway's government aided the Mackenzie & Mann roads through the province of Manitoba to the extent of $8,000 per mile. This aid extended for twenty oi thirty miles into the territories on this Erwood branch. Mr. Roblin, the present premier of Manitoba, has further aided Mac kenzie & Mann in the construction of branch lines in the province; and in granting that aid, he has had the aid which Mr Greenway granted to the line in the territories transferred to the province of Manitoba. Mackenzie & Mann are now appealing to the Dominion government for aid over this same line which Mr. Greenway's government'aided.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Did Mr. Greenway give any subsidy for the 100 miles east of Prince Albert ?


William James Roche: He guaranteed the bonds to the extent of $8,000 per mile on this same line west of the boundary line running towards Prince Albert for a distance of twenty or thirty miles.


Thomas Osborne Davis: That would leave about 180 miles,


William James Roche: Yes, I am not complaining of that. I am not complaining at all of the government aiding this line. But what I do say is, that the people of Prince Albert and the people of the Carrot River country between Prince Albert and Erwood are very desirous of railway accommodation; and I congratulate the Dominion government on imitating the Manitoba government in granting this kind of aid rather than aid in the form of a cash bonus or land grant. Since the provin-

cial government have granted aid to Messrs. Mann & Mackenzie in Manitoba and since the North-west Territories are not granted provincial or local autonomy and are not in a position to build their own road, it is the duty of this government to come to the relief of the North-west Territories and assist in constructing this line of railway. I am going to support these resolutions. I congratulate the government on utilizing a portion of this for rolling stock. The Mackenzie & Mann system had their bonds guaranteed during the past session of the provincial parliament to the extent of $10,000, which is $2,000 more than the other guarantee, but with the stipulation that the $2,000 of excess are to be applied towards the improvement of their rolling stock. Under the circumstances I will support the resolutions, particularly with the understanding that this government shall have absolute control of the rates.


Robert Laird Borden: This one hundred miles is to complete the line to Prince Albert, and the other is to extend the Gilbert Plains branch to Edmonton ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Yes.
On resolution 3,


Edward Frederick Clarke: I understand that the minister has presented to the House a statement of the present indebtedness on this line ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Yes, I read it to the House and it is in ' Hansard.'
On resolution 4,


Robert Laird Borden: Would the hon. minister give us some general information as to the terms of the mortgage in respect of the matters which I brought to his attention the other day ?


The SIINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I have not gone into the subject of the precise details as to the mortgage. We shall of course follow what is usual and customary in such cases. There have been mortgages which have been given to the Manitoba government and there are other mortgages which have been perhaps given in other parts of Canada. We will see what these mortgages are like and come to a conclusion as soon as we can. But I have not, nor has the Department of Justice, which will have charge of that branch of the subject, given that matter any consideration yet. In a general way we propose to embody all the clauses necessary to have the guarantee secured on the property which belongs to this company- all its property of every kind and description. I do not think that I could give the hon. gentleman any information beyond that at present.


William James Roche: On resolution 5,


Edward Frederick Clarke: At the end of the fifty years the government is liable for the principal.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: But it will have the property.


Edward Frederick Clarke: It would be more satisfactory if some arrangement could be made for the extinction of the debt at the end of the fifty years. I brought that matter to the attention of the hon. minister this afternoon and he promised to consider it.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I am not unwilling to do so. It would not be in the interests of the country that the character of the road, its maintainance and betterment and the efficiency of the service, should be impaired by unduly enlarging the fixed charges on the undertaking in its early stages. It is very important that all the earnings they will be able to apply towards improving their road, increasing their equipment and otherwise adding to the efficiency of the road, should be devoted to these purposes, and the question of guarantee is not so urgent a matter as it appears to the hon. gentleman. However, I am quite free to say that his suggestion is worthy of consideration and it will receive the attention of the government.


John Dowsley Reid: Is this all the distance over which the firm of Mackenzie & Mann have asked for a guarantee of bonds, or have they made any request for a similar guarantee should their road be extended to the coast ? If this Grand Trunk Pacific Railway road should go through to the coast and be given a bonus or a guarantee on their bonds, in what position would that place the Canadian Northern '! There would then be two transcontinental lines-the Canadian Pacific Railway and The Grand Trunk Pacific Railway. In what position would the Canadian Northern Railway be then, because these men, Mann & Mackenzie, are the pioneers of the second transcontinental road, and although we may vote these resolutions through, we may be called on in a few days to grant a subsidy to the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I trust the hon. gentleman will not think I am discourteous, because I should be very sorry to appear so to my hon. friend, but I am bound to say that he has introduced so many ' ifs ' in his question that it is impossible for me to give a definite answer. Hypothetical questions are questions to which governments are not extremely anxious, under any circumstances, to reply, and this is a hypothetical question which has so many ' ifs ' in it, that I am unable to answer my hon. friend. There are so many suppositions in his question that it would not perhaps be of any advantage if I were able to reply, which I am not.

X may say, however, that there have been no negotiations whatever between the government and Messrs. Mackenzie & Mann, beyond what are to be found within these resolutions.


John Dowsley Reid: Would the government have any objection to add to these resolutions a guarantee of bonds through to the coast or would they support such a resolution if I were to propose it ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: If my hon. friend will allow me, I will say to him that we must have a proposition before us, before we can decide on it. I could not say what we would do in the event of somebody making an application, and consequently it would not be possible for me to answer my hon. friend's question, but I can assure him that no member of the government has had any such question under consideration, as far as I know.


John Dowsley Reid: Has this firm requested for a guarantee to the coast ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: There has been no communication of any kind at all in that connection.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Is it fair to ask if any negotiations have been going on between the government and any of the parties concerned looking to the absorption of the Mackenzie & Mann railways by the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I can only say that the hon. gentleman (Mr. Clarke) is as well informed as I am on that subject. He reads the newspapers ; and, if you can rely upon the newspapers' statements, evidently, there has been some attempt on the part of these corporations to approach one another; and, if you can rely on the newspapers, these attempts have failed.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Is the government a party ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Not in the slightest degree.


Edward Frederick Clarke: No pressure brought to bear upon the Mackenzie and Mann establishment to compel them to merge with the Grand Trunk Pacific 7


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Not to my knowledge.


John Dowsley Reid: My only desire in mentioning this was to point out that these men are Canadians and that they deserve great credit for the pioneer work they have done on this section of a transcontinental road. I believe that they can push the road through just as well as the Grand Trunk Pacific or any other people can, and in mentioning that this guarantee of bonds be extended through to the coast, it would be merely to protect these people in case that the Grand Trunk Pacific went through. I
think that this road is a good transcontinental road, if the government intend subsidizing a transcontinental road.
On section 6,
Resolved, that the rates and tolls to be charged for the transfer and carriage of freight and passengers upon the lines of railway so aided and upon the lines owned by the Canadian Northern Railway shall be under the control of the Governor in Council or of such authority, commission or tribunal as is designated or constituted under any Act of the parliament of Canada for the regulation or control of the business of railways.


Arthur W. Puttee: What is the quality of this control 7 Is it different from what we have in the General Railway Act 7


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: The General Railway Act, or if the Railway Commission Bill passes, the Railway Commission Law, will certainly, I think, afford very ample control. But it is always thought desirable that we should embody it In the contract, simply by reason of its being part of the law of the land. A contractual relation would exist between the railway and the government with this incorporated in the contract.


Arthur W. Puttee: Will the government have any power to limit the fixed charges, and, for that purpose to limit the capitalization, in order to make the control of rates of some use 7 If you could get the fixed charges down to a low figure that would be a very material element of control.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Parliament has already specified the quantity of bonds to be issued.


Arthur W. Puttee: What is the quantity ?
The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANA i,S. The hon. member (Mr. Puttee) will remember that a general Act passed this parliament bringing all the lines they had acquired and built under one control and management, called the Canadian Northern, and the capitalization on these lines is limited to $24,000,000, if my memory serves me well.	.


Thomas Walter Scott: Would the hon. minister state whether, in his opinion, the Railway Committee which it is proposed to constitute will have the right, with regard to these lines w^e are aiding, to consider the matter and the amount of the aid in fixing the charges the company may levy upon the traffic 7


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I think it would always be a matter within the discretion of the railway board to consider the cost of operation and maintenance, and generally the cost of carrying the traffic, and an element in that consideration, probably, would be what this road cost the company. They are going to be enabled to build the road with lower

fixed charges by reason of the government guarantee. I am not at all clear but that it would be proper for the Railway Commission to consider that as an element in deciding what would be a reasonable tariff.


William James Roche: Is there likely to arise any clash of authority between the Dominion and the provincial governments in reference to this matter of control of rates ? The hon. minister is aware that the provincial government exercises the control of rates over the road in the province of Manitoba. The rates on this line that is being extended into the territories would be under control of the Dominion government. The minister will see that there is a possibility of having some clash of authority.


The MINISTER OP RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I am not able to see why any conflict of authority should arise. The hon. member (Mr. Roche) will remember that when the Manitoba arrangement was brought up for the confirmation of this parliament, that question was discussed, and I think it was the opinion of both sides that no conflict of serious import could arise between the two authorities. If there should be a conflict, the government of Canada must prevail ; the decision of the Governor in Council must necessarily govern.


Thomas Walter Scott: With regard to the point I mentioned, let us suppose a case, a perfectly possible case. This Canadian Northern line will be built with public aid into Prince Albert. The Canadian Pacific Railway Company may carry the Manitoba and North Western Railway into Prince Albert, and, if so, we understand they will build into Prince Albert without aid. Would it be the duty of the commission to fix lower rates on the Canadian Northern on account of the aid given them than that they would fix on the Canadian Pacific, a road built without aid ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Scott) means without direct contribution from this parliament.


Thomas Walter Scott: Without public aid.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: It would hardly be correct to say that the Canadian Pacific is building without aid under all the circumstances. As a matter of fact, we know that enormous land sales are of great financial assistance to the company, and that has been a grant of aid to the Canadian Pacific. They are able to use the proceeds of these sales of land, which aggregate such large sums, to extend their branches and improve their road. So, practically, they are getting aid just as much as this company is, which is getting it in more direct form.


Hon. Mr. BLAIR.: 


Thomas Walter Scott: What the minister says is that my supposititious case is not on all fours with the other. Well, let us suppose the ease of a road that is built without any public assistance as we understand it, and this road aided by the government. In that case, would it be the duty or the right of the commission to establish lower rates on one line than on the other, or should they fix equal rates on both lines ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I would not like to undertake to define what the duty of the commission would be, except in a most general way. It would depend upon circumstances, and the circumstances would have to be weighed at the time the question arose and a decision arrived at according to the best judgment of those officials. I could not undertake to pass upon a matter which has not come up,-no facts, no circumstances, no material on which I could form an opinion.


Haughton Lennox: I am not sure whether I understand this or not. The rate and tolls to be charged on this road are to be controlled by the government in some way. Does that apply to the whole line of railway, that is to all lines owned by the Canadian Northern ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: No doubt the resolution which is dealing simply with these miles of railway that are being aided, only applies to these lines.


Haughton Lennox: I think it applies to more than that. It says :
The rates and tolls to be charged for the transfer and carriage of freight and passengers upon the lines of railway so aided, and upon the lines owned by the Canadian Northern Railway, shall be under the control of the Governor in Council.
That would appear to cover the whole, would it not ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Perhaps it would. The following words are somewhat broader than I thought they were. But there is now the same control over the other portions of the line. We have declared it, and we have conferred it upon the Board of Railway Commissioners as well. So that in every possible way, so far as general legislation goes, I think we have covered the ground.


Robert Laird Borden: It does not add anything, I suppose, to the general law ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: No, only it becomes part of the contract.


Robert Laird Borden: The clause in the contract between the Canadian Northern and the province of Manitoba is a little more explicit than this. It reads :

The Lieutenant Governor in Council shall from time to time fix the rates to be charged and demanded by the company for the carriage of all freight from all points of the companies' lines.
And so on.
Provided always that before any rates are so fixed the company shall be heard and their interests taken into consideration.
In one ease you have control ; In the other case there is an expressed provision that the Governor in Council shall fix the rates.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: The commission will have power to fix the rates.


William James Roche: Will the minister say that the commission will actually exercise their power ? In Manitoba the rate on grain was fourteen cents per 100 pounds before that contract was made, and it has been reduced two cents per 100 pounds by the government. The premier has announced that another reduction of two cents per 100 pounds will go into effect after the 1st of July. So they are actually controlling the rates. The minister states that under this resolution the railway commission will have power, but will they exercise that power ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I think it is proper to assume that in accordance with the object of our legislation they will exercise the powers which are conferred upon them in all proper cases.


Mr. McCREARY.: The hon. gentleman from Marquette (Mr. Roche) ought to explain the whole transaction. If there is a loss on the carriage of grain by the road by reason of the government having reduced the rates below the figure at which grain can be carried, the government of Manitoba have got to make good that loss on the earnings of that road every two years.


William James Roche: So far, I can assure the House and the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. McCreary), the road is not being run at a loss. The best evidence is that the latest statements put forth by the company show that they have had a surplus every year, and the government has not been called upon thus far, and the premier states that he is confident they will not be called upon to pay a single cent of liability.


William Forsythe McCreary: Of course, we know as much about it as the premier. If the country continues to produce such crops as we have had the last year or two there is no danger of any default. But let there be a short crop and there would be a danger. In the event of their being a shortage of crops for a year or two, there might be a default, and the government of Manitoba would have to pay. In that respect the resolutions now before the House differ from
those of the Manitoba government. I wanted to point out all the facts.


William James Roche: And I presume the hon. gentleman supported that contract.
On section 8,
Resolved, that it shall be unlawful for the Canadian Northern Railway to lease or sell any of its lines or any portion thereof to the Canadian Pacific Railway Company or to amalgamate with the said company or enter into any agreement with the said company whereby rates upon freight or passengers shall be pooled ; but this provision shall not extend to traffic or running arrangements made with the assent of the Governor in Council.


William James Roche: In reference to this clause, the minister stated in discussing this question yesterday that even if this road amalgamated with the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway it would be a benefit to that country, as it would then provide a second transcontinental line. As the hon. gentleman is aware, there are rumours at present, whether well founded or ill-founded, I do not know, pointing towards negotiations being carried on to have an amalgamation, or the taking over by the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway of the Mackenzie & Mann railway system. Now this clause specially debars this railway from being purchased or leased by the Canadian Pacific Railway. That is quite justifiable, and in the interest of that country. The people don't want to see this road fall into the hands of the Canadian Pacific Railway. They wish to see them kept separate, and they feel confident that in the future they will have plenty of produce for two or three transcontinental lines, and they do not desire any railway monopoly. But I feel confident that I am voicing the opinions of practically all the people of that country when I say that they are just as anxious that this road should not fall into the hands of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway. The minister stated that he Wished to see a second transcontinental line, and that this would possibly be the best way to secure it. I agree with him that an amalgamation would be desirable if it was at all probable that the Mackenzie & Mann were not able to carry through to a successful issue the prosecution of their enterprise. But thus far they have kept faith with the people of this country, they have shown themselves to be railway constructors, not railway exploiters. I wish to do that justice to them. In every respect they have kept their contracts with the provincial and Dominion governments, so far as the construction of their lines is concerned. Now what I fear, and what the people object to, is that if this road should fall into the hands of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway it will prevent the construction of a third transcontinental line. The Minister of Railways, in committee the other day, stated that if this charter was granted to

the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway their road would not be constructed within thirty miles of any other transcontinental main line. So that if the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway secure their charter, their road must traverse an entirely different section of the country and develop a portion of that country that will not be opened up by the Canadian Northern Railway or by the Canadian Pacific Railway. There must at least be thirty miles between the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway and the Canadian Pacific Railway or the Canadian Northern Railway. So I feel convinced that the people will object to an amalgamation or purchase of the Canadian Northern Railway system by the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway, though possibly not so much as they would object to an amalgamation with the Canadian Pacific Railway. We desire to see three transcontinental lines in the near future, there will be abundance of room for them. I fear that if we do not put a provision in here to prevent an amalgamation, either by the Canadian Pacific Railway or by any other railway that may be chartered by this parliament in future, probably we are going to create a regrettable condition of affairs, and that the government will see, when it is too late the error of their way, that they have been throwing this whole northern country under the control of one company instead of two or more distinct companies.
The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS ANI) CANALS. If the Canadian Northern line should be built through the Rockies, and if the Grand Trunk Pacific should be built through, they would have, either of them, or both of them, to come to parliament to get permission to unite or either to sell to the other. Parliament would then be in a position to judge whether or not it was judicious to allow any such transfer, or sale, or amalgamation, to take place. We have not either of these lines built through yet, and I think we need not give ourselves a great deal of undue concern upon that subject. If the Grand Trunk Pacific should be able to come to an understanding, if they desire to do so, and if there are efforts being made in that direction to-day, of which I have no present knowledge, they will have to come to an understanding before they proceed to build any portion of their railway at all. If they are going to get that line, they will get it at once, or they will not get it all. The moment they commence to construct another line through, there is an end to any attempt on their part to acquire the Canadian Northern. It would be only for the purpose of getting the benefit of the Canadian Northern business, locations and charters, that they would seek to become possessed of that system. I think we can make our minds perfectly free on that subject. I do not believe my hon. friend (Mr. Roche) will find that the contingency that he anticipates will arise.
Mr. ROCHE (Marquette),
If it should, the union cannot be effectuated until parliament so decides.


William James Roche: Why have the Canadian Pacific Railway specified ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: We had to put this in here so that we might have it in the form of an absolute contract and have a positive affirmation that they would not do so.


William James Roche: That is just exactly why I say that we should guard against amalgamation with any road built in the future. The hon. gentleman could put in a general clause. Does the hon. minister not think himself, in view of his declaration to the House that he thought it would be a benefit if they did amalgamate with the Grand Trunk Pacific, that they will be inclined to take advantage of that declaration of a minister of the Crown and complete negotiations ? Afterwards coming to this parliament and seeking legislation authorizing them to amalgamate, feeling sure they will be ratified after this declaration on the part of the government.


Thomas Walter Scott: I think the suggestion which the hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Roche) has made is entirely impracticable. If we adopt it we will be cancelling a good deal of the private legislation that we have been putting through this session. I imagine that there must be half a dozen railway Bills that have gone through or are going through this session that provide specifically that the company being incorporated shall have the right to amalgamate with the Canadian Pacific Railway. There are also two or three cases, I think, or perhaps more, where it is provided that the company being incorporated may amalgamate with the Canadian Northern. I think the suggestion of the hon. gentleman is quite impracticable. Of course, it would be perfectly practicable to specify that this company shall never amalgamate with any company that may be incorporated under the name of the Grand Trunk Pacific, in the same way in which we are providing against amalgamating with the Canadian Pacific Railway. As a representative of the North-west, I may say that I think there would be a unanimous and very strong sentiment in that country against permitting the Canadian Northern to have the privilege of amalgamating with the Canalian Pacific Railway, but I doubt very much if there is one man out of a hundred who would have any feeling against a suggestion that the Canadian Northern and the Grand Trunk Pacific should amalgamate.


William James Roche: Then, the hon. gentleman takes the position that the people of the west only want one line.
On section 9,


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: The hon. Minister of Justice says

that In drafting the resolution the words ' subrogated in ' are used because that is the form in which they always use the term. With us, of course, it is quite different. We would use the expression ' subrogated to.'


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: I am not wedded to that. That is the way our code uses It.


Robert Laird Borden: I do not get up for the purpose of criticising the language. In my own province we usually adopt the expression ' subrogated to.' In connection with the preparation of the mortgage, which we have not before the House, and as to Which I may say we have the very vaguest possible information from the hon. minister, if we could call it information at all-and I think I am paying a compliment to the hon. gentleman by suggesting that he has conveyed any information to the House or the committee-what will be your position if you adopt the scheme proposed by the hon. minister ? You will have these bonds guaranteed as to principal and interest by the government by some contract which will appear on the face of the bond, then you will have a mortgage, not indemnifying the government against its guarantee, but a mortgage to the trustee charging the principal and interest of these bonds upon the undertaking of the company. I suggest to the hon. minister that it would be better, from the standpoint of the government, and possibly no less in the interest of the company, to have a mortgage indemnifying the government against its guarantee, and I say that for this reason, which occurs to me at the moment: Suppose the company makes default in its interest, what is the position of tht government in case it should want to acquire the road or to exercise its rights, either by way of sale or otherwise 1 The government cannot take over the bonds, because the principal of these bonds is still vested in the persons who are the holders. The company is liable to these persons in respect to the principal of the bonds and it is liable to the government in respect to the interest on the bonds which is defaulted and which the government has been obliged to pay. It seems to me that it would be rather awkward to work that out in such a way that the government could exercise the rights which it ought to have in respect to foreclosing the mortgage. I dare say, of course, that it can be accomplished, but it would be a simpler course for the government to have a mortgage on the undertaking and property of the company indemnifying the government against any moneys which it might be called upon to pay under the terms of this guarantee. Of course, that is a question for my hon. friend the Minister of Justice when the document comes to be drawn.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I have not thought the matter out very much, but I apprehend that there would be given a second mortgage as it 101 [DOT]
were to the government which would practically be very much as the hon. gentleman suggests. Under that, the government could take any steps necessary to take possession of the property, subject of course to its liability for the bonded obligation.


Robert Laird Borden: It adds nothing to the value of the bonds to prepare a mortgage such as the hon. gentleman suggests. Of course, if it would add to the security of the bonds it would be an answer to any observations I made on the subject, but inasmuch as the bonds are to have the whole security of the Dominion of Canada


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: That would be for our own protection.


Robert Laird Borden: So far as your protection is concerned it seems to me you can accomplish that better by having a mortgage indemnifying the government against any loss which it may sustain by reason of giving this guarantee. Then you do not have the situation complicated by the fact that a part of the liability of the company, the principal and the interest to accrue, will be owing to the holders of the bonds, whereas the interest that has been defaulted and paid by the government would be owing to the government. I hope I make myself clear to the Minister of Railways and to the Minister of Justice.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: Perfectly. The question is whether the government ought not to be a party to the original document. That is my view at present.
Resolutions reported, read a second time, and agreed to.



SUPPLY.

[Stage Direction]
House in Committee of Supply.
[u'251 (Mr. Fielding) on M. for 1\xb0, 11163 (v).']
The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: We desire the committee to give their attention to the special items which were under consideration last evening with the view to an early Supply Bill.
Further amount required for salaries and disbursements of fishery officers, $30,000.


Robert Laird Borden: I have a letter from one of my constituents which says that the inspection of lobster factories in the county of Halifax is not carried out in a very efficient manner. I am not going to use any names, but I can give the names to the minister privately if he desires me to do so. The allegation is that lobsters are being used which are not of the regulation size and that when the inspector makes his visit, information is in some way communicated to the proprietors of the lobster factories, and the lobsters wheh are under the size prescribed by law are concealed in some manner. The suggestion is made that

the visits of the inspector should be made more frequently than they are at present. The names and the details are given in the letter I have, but perhaps it may not be advisable for me to state them to the House.


The MINISTER OP MARINE AND FISHERIES.: I would be most happy to have the information and I can assure my hon. friend that attention will be paid to it.


George Taylor: Mr. J. M. Hurley, of Belleville, is drawing a salary of $1,200 and $235.51 travelling allowance, making a total of $1,435.51. I would like the minister to explain what Mr. Hurley has done for this money. Some of us know pretty well that Mr. Hurley is drawing his salary, but we do not know what his duti *s are except to draw his salary.
The	MINISTER	OF	MARINE	ANDFISHERIES. Mr.	Hurley is one	of the
three fishery inspectors in Ontario and the officials of the department inform me that lie performs his duties ?


George Taylor: What are his duties ?
The	MINISTER	'OF	MARINE	AND
FISHERIES. Fishery inspector.


George Taylor: What are the duties of a fishery inspect >r ?
The	MINISTER	OF	MARINE	AND
FISHERIES. He travels from one place to another to see that the law is observed.


George Taylor: He is given a salary of $100 a month to devote his whole time to the duties of fishery overseer ?
The	MINISTER	OF	MARINE	AND
FISHERIES. He is brought to Ottawa once a month to make a report.


George Taylor: He comes down and makes his report personally without sending it by mail ?
The	MINISTER	OF	MARINE	AND
FISHERIES. He reports himself personally to the office once a month. He has special duties to perform as he has charge of the pond where we propagate black bass.


George Taylor: I notice that Mr. Hurley, while being fishery officer, was appointed census commissioner, and drew $155.37 for expenses, besides a large sum for reviewing the work.
The	MINISTER	OF	'	MARINE	ANDFISHERIES. It must	have been	during
the winter.


George Taylor: The census was not taken in the winter ; it was taken in the spring. Did the hon. minister give him leave of absence while he was attending to the census ? Mr. Hurley got $178 for revising the returns and $155 for expenses, making $333, which he got from another branch of the government while lie was employed at $100 i Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).
a month the year round, and drawing his salary as fishery inspector. Did he lose one or two months of time while he was doing the census work ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: We are satisfied in the department that Mr. Hurley has done his duty. it is probable that he would require to do some special census work because lie was a fishery inspector, and to make special returns relating to the fishing industry.


George Taylor: Will the hon. gentleman kindly lay on the Table Mr. Hurley's monthly reports ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: There are no monthly reports. He does the same work as an ordinary fishery inspector, and he comes here and gets his instructions from the department, and goes back.
Mr: TAYLOR. Surely this officer makes reports to the department of what work he is doing, and we would like to see his reports.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: He has special duties to perform, and he reports verbally to the department what he is doing, and receives instructions, the same as the other officials of the department.


Matthew Henry Cochrane: We would like to know what those special duties are ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: To see that the laws are observed.


Matthew Henry Cochrane: If the minister does not know what they are, he had better inform himself.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: I beg pardon. I am perfectly informed.
Mr. COCHRANE, Will the minister, then, be kind enough to tell the committee something about it ? We understand that the Ontario government lias control of the fisheries and issues the licenses. Is that not a fact ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: Certainly.


Matthew Henry Cochrane: Then what is Mr. Hurley attending to, if the Ontario government issues the licenses and gets the fees ? I do not know what our officer duties are, and I would like the minister to explain.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: We are responsible for the administration of the laws governing the fisheries. We have three inspectors in Ontario to see that these laws are observed, and Mr. Hurley is one of them.


Matthew Henry Cochrane: What law is there for Mr. Hurley to see observed when the Ontario government has control of the fisheries and issues the licenses ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: I will send the hon. gentleman a brand new copy of the Fisheries Act.


Matthew Henry Cochrane: That is no information about what he is doing now.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: The question of jurisdiction with regard to the fisheries as between the Dominion government and the provincial government has been the subject of a decision of the Privy Council. That decision is not just as clear as the legal profession or even the Supreme Court would desire, and it would be very hazardous for any person in an off-hand way to attempt' to expound it. But I think it is conceded that there is joint jurisdiction. The Dominion government retains jurisdiction to a certain extent. It may, for example, pass regulations declaring under what conditions fishing may take place, and the provincial government may regulate the fishing in accordance with the general regulations prescribed by the Dominion government. That is, I think, as near as you can get to the meaning of the decision of the Privy Council. Under the division of jurisdiction, I think the provincial governments now appoint local officers, while it is still the duty of the Dominion government to see that its general regulations are observed by the local officers.


Matthew Henry Cochrane: Why should the Dominion government be so anxious about that, and appoint a fishery inspector to carry out instructions which are so mystified that the Postmaster General can hardly understand them ? Then, how can a gentleman of Mr. Hurley's capabilities understand them ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: The hon. gentleman did not appreciate what I said.


Matthew Henry Cochrane: If the hon. Postmaster General is coming to the rescue of the hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries, I would ask him why should we expend so much money to inspect and be so anxious about the fisheries when they do not belong to us, and when the revenues derived from the use of the licenses go to the provincial exchequer ? The local government should be the party interested, and see that the regulations are carried out. That is the way it strikes me, and that is, I think, what any business government. - as this government claims to be, would say. The local government issues the licenses and gets all the money out of the job, and why should they not attend to the protection of the fisheries ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: The inspector appointed by the provincial government does not pass the regulations. The general policy for making use of the fisheries rests with the Dominion government.


Matthew Henry Cochrane: Why ? When we do not get anything out of them ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: Why, is another question. For many years the Dominion government did issue the licenses and appointed the officers ; but in consequence of the decision in question, which gave a measure of jurisdiction to the provincial governments, the Dominion government has gradually ceased to exercise that control, leaving the provincial governments to do so. But the two governments work in harmony, the Dominion government having this policy, and the provincial government appointing the officers to see that the policy is maintained.


Matthew Henry Cochrane: And getting the money.
THE POSTMASTER GENERAL. The officers appointed by the provincial government have not to construe the law. They have simply to see that the policy of the Dominion government is lived up to.


Matthew Henry Cochrane: What is the policy of the Dominion government ?


Tlie POSTMASTER GENERAL.: It is different according to the different waters, and in the different provinces and localities.


Matthew Henry Cochrane: It looks to me not like a business proposition at all, and the hon. Postmaster General has not explained it, why the Dominion government should make laws to regulate the fisheries when it does not make any money out of them. I understand that the local governments appoint fishery inspectors too. Why do you want gentlemen running around to see that something is done without anybody knowing what their business is ? It just looks to me as though the government wanted to give a defeated candidate a good job. The idea of paying a man from $1,500 to $1,600 for travelling around the country without anybody having any definite idea of what he is doing. The Minister of Marine does not know, and the Postmaster General is just as much at fault in coming to his rescue as I am when I try to get information. The local legislature issues licenses and appoints inspectors and there is no need for the Dominion government to appoint any except they want to give a job to some broken-down politician. And not satisfied with giving him $1,500 or $1,600 per year, they make him census commissioner as well. Does the hon. Postmaster General think that that is a business transaction for a business government ?


Haughton Lennox: It is all right for the man.


Matthew Henry Cochrane: Yes, it was a good thing for him that he was defeated, for he has got a better job. We are paying him something like $1,500.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: Twelve hundred dollars.


Matthew Henry Cochrane: With his expenses, $1,435. Will the hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries tell us what he is doing ? His deputy who is here, could tell him, if this man were doing anything.


William James Roche: Who is the fishery inspector of Manitoba ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: There is one at Selkirk, Mr, Young, who gets $1,200.


William James Roche: Who is in charge of the fish hatchery at Selkirk ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: On page 251 of the departmental report the hon. gentleman will find all the particulars. Mr. William Parker and bis assistant, Mr. Samuel Adamson, have charge of the fish hatchery.


George Taylor: I beg leave to move, seconded by Mr. Gilmour, that this item be reduced by the amount of $4,415.93, being the amount of salary and expenses to Archibald Duncan, 1>. M. Hurley and B. Shepherd as fishery overseers.
As this work is done by the officers of the Ontario government, this expenditure is unnecessary and useless. The eastern part of Ontario is covered by the official from the Ontario government, who draws $1,600 for doing as little as Mr. Hurley does. This money is thrown away, and as a representative of the people living in the section where the work is done, I could not vote for this expenditure. We have asked what Mr. Hurley's duties are, what waters he has charge of, and where lie makes special visits, but could get no information. I know that he runs from Belleville down here to talk to the minister once a month and that is about all he does. When the decision, to which the Postmaster General referred, was given, all the fishery overseers in Ontario were dismissed en bloc but the government then went to work and appointed three politicians just to give them something to do. Mr. Shepherd is an active politician in Toronto, Mr. Hurley is an ex-M.P., and not satisfied with giving him $1,200 and some $300 expenses, they made him census commissioner.	,


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: I have here Mr. Hurley's report on page xli of the blue-book, and if the hon. gentleman will take the trouble of reading it, he will find there what Mr. Hurley does.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: I would like to understand on what principle my hon. friend (Mr. Taylor) proposes to deduct this amount. These gentlemen although they are not engaged in the task of watching the different waters, yet they have jurisdiction over a large area of this large province ; and, if I understand the hon. Minis-Mr. COCHRANE.
ter of Marine and Fisheries there are only three of these superintendents for the whole province. Mr. Hurley was a useful member of this House. He did not take an active part in debate but he was a member of most excellent judgment. He is in every respect a reliable man, and his acceptance of this office was a decided advantage to the public. Mr. Hurley is a man of exceptional ability and most conscientious in every respect. I am satisfied that he would not consent to fill a public office and receive its emoluments unless he felt that he was earning the money that was paid to him. As an old colleague of our own in this House, one who was well known to us all, I hope the committee will hot east reflection upon him by assuming that he would draw a salary that he did not earn. As to the other officers, I think it could be assumed that they also are earning their pay. If I remember rightly the late government assigned a sum of $1,500 instead of $1,200 to these officers. The present government, in pursuance of the principle of economy which characterizes all their acts, has reduced the amount by 20 per cent. That reduction, I suppose, was made partly in consequence of the transfer of a portion of the duties of these officers to the local government. I am only assuming that, but I think I am right. I wish my hon. friend (Mr. Taylor) could see his way not to press his motion, particularly in the case of Mr. Hurley, who had many friends in this House, and who, when he went away carried with him the respect of hon. members on both sides.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I would like to be a little logical and understand how the hon. gentleman has arrived at this sum. I want to be sure, as a financial matter, that he has got it right. He proposes to reduce the amount by $4,415.93, being for salaries and expenses of the three gentlemen named. How does he reach that amount ?


George Taylor: From the Auditor General's Report. The total expenditure is $4,445.93, but $30 was paid to E. H. Sills, of Napanee, being for storage of gill-nets, $20, and removing corks and leads $10.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Surely, the hon. gentleman is not going to cut off any expenditure for the removal of corks.


George Taylor: The hon. minister knows what corks are used for in the gill-nets- for floaters. I deduct that $30 from the total, leaving an amount of $4,415.93, by which I have moved to reduce this item.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: As to the cork, I am somewhat like my Irish friend who said he had never been in Cork but had seen many drawings of it. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Taylor) is trying to cut down the amount expended to the 30th of June last. But that is already paid, and

you cannot well reduce tliat. Or, if lie takes that as a fair average for the current year and seeks to cut down for this year,
I will call his attention to the fact that these gentlemen have been in office during this financial year which is now all but ended. I take it that, like other civil servants, they have received the amount of their pay, at any rate that there is not more than two or three months' pay due them. Surely, the hon. gentleman is not going to deprive them of their salaries. The cutting off of these salaries might be a matter of consideration in the estimates of next year, but these gentlemen have done the work, and surely the hon. gentleman would not be so unjust as to refuse to pay them.


John Dowsley Reid: If I remember rightly there was some discussion in the House with reference to Mr. Hurley last session. I think the hon. member for West Hastings (Mr. Porter) claimed that Mr. Hurley had arranged a protest against him through a Mr. Collins. An affidavit was produced from Mr. Hurley that he had taken no part in it whatever. It had been claimed that Mr. Collins was to get $100 for attending to some buoys or something of that kind. Mr. Hurley made affidavit that that was not the case. But I am told that in the Auditor's General's Report it appears that Mr. Collins received that $100 since that time. I would like to know from the Minister of Marine and Fisheries if Mr. Collins did receive that money ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: As to the accusation made against Mr. Hurley, I think the hon. member for West Hastings (Mr. Porter) will admit, if he has not done so in the House before, that there in not the slightest foundation for the rumour that he had heard. Not only the other evidence, but the sworn testimony of both parties was taken to the effect that they had never made any agreement or even spoken about the matter-that they had had nothing to do with it. Even if they had, I do not know what crime it would be, except that Mr. Hurley, occupying a public office should not be mixed up in politics. Criticisms of the conduct of our officials is quite proper ; but when a man conducts himself properly and rumours injurious to him that are started are shown beyond all question to be entirely without foundation, I think that it is most unfair that those rumours should be repeated. As to Mr. Hurley's performance of the duties of the office, I can say that when I was in the department, I was assured by the officials that Mr. Hurley had' done faithful and effective service, and that there had been splendid results in his district, especially in the breeding of bass, car loads of which were sent to different parts of tlie country as far west as British Columbia-a very useful work, I believe. In view of the criticism I think it only fair to say that whatever duty has been assigned to Mr. Hurley he has conducted it faithfully and to the entire satisfaction of the head of his department. I am sorry again to hear, after this matter had been so clearly disposed of, that insinuations are made in regard to the same matter which was referred to on a previous occasion, based on a mere street rumour started by some evil-disposed person.


John Dowsley Reid: All I know about it is this : I happened to be speaking with the member for West Hastings (Mr. Porter) this evening, and he told me that this affidavit had been produced, and that since then this man Collins had told his partner that he had made an affidavit that Hurley did promise! him $100 and that he had got the $100 as agreed to from Hprley, notwithstanding the fact that Hnrley made this affidavit. And for the purpose of ascertaining whether Collins is right or Hurley is right, I simply asked the question whether Collins got the $100. That was told me this afternoon, and I am satisfied the hon. member for Hastings will back it up in this House.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: All I can say is that I never heard of it except when the member for West Hastings last session brought it up. I was under the impression that he had afterwards brought it up in the House. If anything has developed since then, I have nothing more to say about it.
Mr-. REID (Grenville). The Minister of Public Works will understand that it was after my hon. friend from Hastings said he was going to bring it up in this House that an affidavit was submitted here by Mr. Hurley, and that he was prepared to take this matter up and prove, notwihstanding the affidavit of Mr. Hurley, that Collins had made an affidavit that he had been promised $100 and that he had since received it. Now will the Minister of Marine and Fisheries state whether Collins received $100 ? I think it was for placing buoys or something of that kind.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: I am informed that Collins had a contract, or had something to do with placing buoys in the Bay of Quints, and that he was paid $100 for his services. We have four or five hundred buoys, and they are placed some by contract, some by day's work and some by harbour masters.


John Dowsley Reid: Now) the minister will see that we are perfectly justified in criticising Mr. Hurley for making an affidavit of that kind. It is now proved that the $100 has been paid.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: That has nothing whatever to do with the affidavit of Mr. Hurley. Mr. Collins was paid, if I understand right, for services he rendered to the department for inspection of buoys in the Bay' of Quints.


Mr. BENNETT.: That cannot be the same Collins, as the lighthouse keeper at Christian island, who I see in the report was paid $6 for putting a buoy on a shoal. That was up on Georgian bay, this is on Lake Ontario.


John Dowsley Reid: As I understood the hon. member for West Hastings, there is an affidavit in the ' Hansard ' that Hurley did negotiate with Collins in regard to entering a protest against his election, and that he was to receive $100 for placing those buoys. Since then that $100 has been paid to Collins.


George Taylor: The Finance Minister made an appeal not to have this amount struck out because these gentlemen had done the work. There is something in the appeal, of course. But the members of the opposition opposed these appointments, and discussed them last year, and stated the money was wasted. That is the only way possible by which we can protest against this expenditure.


John Dowsley Reid: What I object to is this : That Mr. Hurley should not interfere in politics, and if he is active enough to go and get a man to enter a protest against a gentleman that has been elected and pledges that he will get $100, and makes an affidavit afterwards that he had nothing to da| with it, and the $100 is paid, it is certainly not creditable for an officer of the government.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: There was no knowledge in the department that he had been a contractor in any way for the department. But I can say for myself that I never directly or indirectly had any intimation that there was any person connected with politics in any way, or that there was anything irregular in granting this to any person in that constituency in connection with provincial politics. If anything of that kind was done, it was without my knowledge, and without any official of the department knowing anything about it. If the services rendered were not worth the money, that is a different thing.


John Dowsley Reid: Certainly I am not reflecting on the minister while he was in charge.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: What is the Christian name of this Mr. Collins ?


John Dowsley Reid: I do not remember, I was not told.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: There is one Collins employed at Christian island, and his name is Allan.


William Humphrey Bennett: That is on Georgian bay.


George Taylor: I understood from the Minister of Marine and Fisheries,; from information that he got from his officer a few moments ago, that Mr. Collins did have a Hon. Mr. PREFONTAINE.
contract with the government and was paid $100. Now what Collins was that he referred to ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: The information my officers give me is to the effect that we have now at that island as lighthouse keeper a man named Allan Collins. He is the only one of that name.


George Taylor: That is not the information the minister gave a few) moments ago. He told us that this Collins we are discussing did have a contract for putting out buoys, and that he was paid $100. Now I want to ask the Minister of Public Works if this Mr. Collins to whom reference has been made did have a contract with the government for placing buoys, and did he get $100 for it, and was that contract let by Mr. Hurley ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC AVORKS.: It would not be let by Mr. Hurley. My recollection is that the person mentioned, whose name I forget now, to whom Mr. Hurley was said to have spoken, was a man who had a contract with the department. It seems the man referred to had a contract with the department for placing buoys. I remember that from the discussion. But I want to assure the committee that there is no knowledge on my part about it, and no representation was made to any person in the department that there was anything excessive in the contract, or that it had any connection with provincial politics. It went through the department in the usual way. I should be surprised to learn, from my personal knowledge of Mr. Hurley, that he would make any representation that was not strictly true. AVben the matter was brought up in the House I wrote him a letter at once, and got his reply, accompanied with an affidavit which I showed to the hon. member for AVest Hastings. The matter was then allowed to drop, and I understood that the explanation was considered perfectly satisfactory, and that there was no foundation for the charge. There is no connection whatever between the contract this man had at the time and the incident that was reported to the House.


John Dowsley Reid: I may say to the . hon. Minister of Public AVorks that the hon. member for1 AVest Hastings did not intend to reflect on him as a minister, but it was in regard to Mr. Hurley that he was raising the question, and in regard to Mr. Hurley making an affidavit of this kind, and that afterwards Collins told his partner that he had got $100. I may be wrong when I say that he made an affidavit, but Collins told his partner that he had been promised this, and that be had got the $100. If such is the case, Mr. Hurley is certainly wrong in making the affidavit he did, and I simply asked the question to see if it were true that he did get the* $100. If the hon. minister

states that he did not get the $100, the hon. member for West Hastings can bring the question up at a later date, when he is in the House.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: I do not find any record of the payment of $100. I will make the necessary inquiries as to whether any such thing took place.


John Dowsley Reid: Do the officers not know whether there has been $100 paid ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: 1 think the evidence by which the committee is asked to be satisfied that $100 was paid can be characterized as secondary evidence. The hon. member for Grenville (Mr. Reid) says that the hon member for West Hastings said that the partner of John Collins said that John Collins said that Mr. Hurley said he would give him $100.


John Dowsley Reid: The hon. member for West Hastings said he saw it in the Auditor General's Report himself.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: Here is the book. That would be better evidence.


Matthew Henry Cochrane: I want to state that I have no intention to reflect upon Mr. Hurley at all, who, the hon. Postmaster General said, is a very worthy man. I do not dispute that, but we cannot give every worthy man in Ontario $1,500 a year simply because he is a worthy man. I have tried to get some information in reference to Mr. Hurley's duties. I tried to get it from the hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries and failed, and then the hon. Postmaster General came to his rescue, and he told us that he was a very worthy man.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: So he is.


Matthew Henry Cochrane: I have no doubt about that. I will not contradict the hon. Postmaster General at all. Although he may be a worthy man, there are hundreds of worthy men in Ontario, but, as I said, we cannot afford to give every worthy man in Ontario $1,500 or $1,600 a year. The hon. Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Sutherland) has come in, and he knows perhaps what Mr. Hurley's duties are. I was saying to the committee before the hon. gentleman came in that I thought it was not like a business transaction on the part of a business government to pay officers $1,500 or $2,000 a year for one job or another when the local legis lature has the right to issue the licenses and keep the money. I refer to Mr. Hurley, because I know him better than anybody else I want to satisfy my mind so that I can give information to the electors in the constituency which I have the honour to represent when they ask me what these inspectors are doing. What earthly use is there in having these officers to supervise the fisheries, when the local legislature is making all the money out of it ? They are the parties who are interested. They have their own officers attending to that duty, and we are appointing officials to go over the same ground exactly. I suppose it is the duty of our officials to see that the officials of the legislature are doing their duty, but they are getting the money. I cannot see any use of the Dominion government paying out this money, hot that it is an enormous sum, but that is how money is frittered away.


Mr. DYMENT.: I understand that


Matthew Henry Cochrane: I did not ask the hon, gentleman (Mr. Dyment) for information.


Albert Edward Dyment: I do not knowj that the hon. member for Northumberland (Mr. Cochrane) has a monopoly of the time of this committee.


Matthew Henry Cochrane: I was asking for some information, if the hon. gentleman will allow me to get it.


Albert Edward Dyment: The hon. gentleman has asked several times, and if he will permit me, I will try to give him a little information in regard to the duties of the fishery inspector on the Georgian bay and Lake Superior.


Matthew Henry Cochrane: I guess the hon. gentleman is interested in that job.


Albert Edward Dyment: The hon. member need not listen to this if he does not wish to. I understand that under the decision given by the Privy Council in regard to the fisheries this government has power to see that the close season is observed, to define the waters where the nets shall be placed, the size of the mesh that shall be used and the kind of net that shall be used. I know that the inspector, Mr. Duncan, whom I am more particularly interested in, spends a great deal of his time in seeing that the nets are in the proper places and not on the spawning grounds, because if the nets were allowed to be placed there for fishing purposes the fish while spawning would be taken and the increase in the number of fish would be affected. I know also that he spends a good deal of his time, and with good results, in seeing that the Americans do not come over and fish about St. Joseph's island, Cockburn island and in the St. Mary's river. He has many a time chased these illegal fishermen out of the country, and, as far as he is concerned, I can assure the hon. member for Northumberland that his time is well spent, and that he earns every dollar that is paid to him.


Matthew Henry Cochrane: I would recommend that the hon. gentleman be appointed Minister of Marine and Fisheries. He appears to know more about it than any of the ministers from whom I have asked information to-night.
Amendment (Mr. Taylor) negatived, and item voted.


George Taylor: Had we not better adjourn now ?


Tbe POSTMASTER GENERAL.: Would it not be better to dispose of the supplementary estimates with the understanding that everything can be discussed in the main estimates.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Let us go on until 12 o'clock.


George Taylor: All right, go ahead.
Additional amount required for printing and engraving Dominion notes, $30,000.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: This item is dependent entirely on the amount of notes circulated. We have been increasing the circulation very largely owing to the increased business of the country. There was a general expression of desire that we should withdraw outstanding notes that were not in good condition and we have been encouraging the banks to send in tbe old notes and receive clean ones. That accounts for some of the expenses. The result is that our note circulation is in better condition than ever before.
Regina Jail-purchase of additional land, $4,800.


William Humphrey Bennett: Has the land been purchased ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: No. More ground is absolutely required there, and tbe intention is to buy part of a quarter section which is immediately east of the jail and we are getting it for $30 an acre, and I understand it is a great bargain at that price.
Mr. j^ENNOX. We are to understand that all these items can be discussed again on the main estimates ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: Yes.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Certainly, without any hesitation. I move that the committee rise, report progress, and ask leave to sit again. We have done a good evening's work, and I am much obliged to hon. gentlemen opposite for their courtesy.
Some resolutions reported.
The MINISTER OF FINANCE moved the adjournment of the House.


George Taylor: Will the hon. minister state what the business will be on Monday ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Several Bills-one in the name of the Minister of Agriculture, and one in the name of the Minister of Justice, and then we will take up supply, disposing of tbe supplementary estimates if we can. We are more anxious to have them passed than the main estimates.


George Taylor: The Railway Bill will not be taken up ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: It may be ; I am not prepared to say. We will take the minor Bills first, and if the Railway Bill is introduced later, it will be by agreement.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and the House adjourned at 10.40 p.m.

[Stage Direction]
Abbreviations of well known words and Parliamentary expressions are used in the following :-1°, 2°, 3°, First Reading, Second Reading, Third Reading ; 3 m. h., 6 m. h., 6 w. h., Three Months' Hoist, Six Months' Hoist, Six Weeks'Hoist without remarks or debate ; Acets., Accounts; Adjn., Adjourn; Adjd., Adjourned; Amt., Amendment; Amts., Amendments; Amalg., Amalgamation; Ans., Answer; Ass., Assurance; B., Bill; B.C., British Columbia; Can., Canada or Canadian; C.P.R., Canadian Pacific Railway ; Com., Committee ; Co., Company ; Cone., Concur, Concurred, Concurrence ; Consd., Consider ; Consdn., Consideration ; Cor., Correspondence ; Deb., Debate; Dept., Department; Depts., Departments ; Div., Division; Dom., Dominion ; Govt., Government; His Ex., His Excellency the Governor General ; Hse., House ; H. of C., House of Commons ; Incorp., Incorporation ; Ins., Insurance ; I.C.R., Intercolonial Railway; Man., Manitoba; Mess., Message; M., Motion; m., moved. Neg., Negatived; N.B., New Brunswick; N.W.T., North-west Territories; N.S., Nova Scotia; O.C., Order in Council; Ont., Ontario ; P.E.I., Prince Edward Island ; P.O., Post Office; Par., Paragraph; Prop., Proposed ; Q., Quebec; Ques., Question ; Reeom., Recommit; Ref., Refer, Referred, Reference ; Rep., Report, Reported ; Reps., Reports ; Res., Resolution ; Ret., Return ; Ry., Railway ; Rys., Railways ; Sel., Select; Sen., Senate ; Sp., Special; Stmnt., Statement; Sup., Supply ; Suppl., Supplement, Supplementary ; Wthdn., Withdrawn ; Wthdrl. Withdrawal ; Y.N., Yeas and Nays; Names in Italics and parentheses are those of the mover.
Alcorn, Mr. Gk O., Prince Edward.
Anderson, Mr. ' J. G., Appnmt. as Fruit Inspector (Ques.) 13372 (vi).
Binder Twine Inspection, Method of Collection, &c. (Ques.) 14684 (vi).
G.T. Pacific Ry. Co.'s Subsidy B. 235 (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) on M. for 3° (amt.) 12703 ; Neg. (Y. 35 ; N. 75) 12705 (v).
[Stage Direction]
Pets re, onM. (Mr. Talbot) to ref. to Com.
on Privs. and Elections 13274 (vi).
Picton Mail Service, Irregular Delivery, &c. (remarks) 13134 (vi).
Supply:
Public Works: Buildings-B. C. (Rossland, armoury) 13133 ; Dom. (rentals, &c.) 13133; Man. (Winnipeg, military buildings) 13129; Ont. (Cobourg, P.O. 13118 ; (Deseronto, P. O.) 13113; (Picton, P.O.) 13113 (vi).
Angers, Mr. C., Charlevoix.
G. T. Pacific Ry. Co.'s incorp. B. 64 (Mr. McCarthy) in Com., 5192 (iii).
G. T. Pacific Ry. Co.'s Subsidy B. 235 (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) on M. for Com. on Res., 10349 (v).
Seeds, Inspection for Sale B. 200 (Mr. Fisher) in Com., 6493 (iii).
Archambault, Mr. J. E., Berthier.
G. T. Pacific Ry. Co's. Subsidy B. 235 (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) on M. for Com. on Res., 10071
(iv).
Avery, Mr. M. Addington.
Butter Adulteration, Prevention B. 207 (Mr. Fisher) in Com., 5461 (iii).
Avery, Mr. M.-Con.
Enterprise Postmaster, Dismissal, &c. (remarks) 14007 (vi).
Audit Act.   A@: 
Audit Act.   A@: