1904-05-27

Mr.   H.@: GUTHRIE (South Wellington* moved :
That the petition this day presented to this House by James .Gallagher and others for leave to introduce a private Bill intituled : * An Act to incorporate the Farmers' Bank of Canada,' be read and received forthwith, and referred to the Committee on Standing Orders.


Mr. R. L. BORDEN.: Is this being introduced out of the usual time ? If so, the hon. gentleman should give some reasons.


Mr. GUTHRIE.: The time, I believe, for giving notice expires to-day. The petition explains that owing to unforeseen events the petitioners were not able to present it earlier.
I think it is just the usual application for a bank charter.


Robert Laird Borden: I do not object; but I think that when a petition is presented out of the usual course, the gentleman who presents it should show some reason why it was not introduced before. If the hon. gentleman would state what the unforeseen circumstances are, I would withdraw any objection I might otherwise have.


Hugh Guthrie: ,1 know nothing of the facts, and the petition sets forth that owing to unforeseen delay the petitioners could not present their application in time.


Robert Laird Borden: We should have some more definite reasons given. There :s no statement of fact in the petition, but merely a statement of opinion. I would suggest to the right hon. gentleman that we should have some more decided mode of procedure in these matters, and perhaps it would be well to amend the orders of the House so as to provide that any petition presented after the usual time must set forth certain facts showing why it should be received.


Sir WILFRID LAURIER.: I do not think there is any necessity for amending the rule, but when private parties want to avail themselves of the privilege of private legislation, they should follow the rule, or at least give us some cause why they do not. The only saving clause in this matter is that I the incorporation desired would not injure



S719 COMMONS

[Stage Direction]
any private interest. All that is ashed is the power, to incorporate a bank and, under the circumstances, I think we can afford to let the matter go.
Mr. FIELDING.: I think we might consider the applying of a surtax. That is to say, we might have an additional fee imposed upon those gentlemen who do not get their business ready in time for parliament.


Robert Laird Borden: That would be a good idea. The only reason I suggested a new rule is that if you have a certain procedure pointing out the absolute necessity of setting out special facts; then it may be observed. If you do not have that, but merely have a general rule, and there is universal knowledge that this may be departed from, you are apt to have petitions in this careless and slovenly form. However, I dare say we can get on as my right hon. friend (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) suggests without any further rule.



PATENT OF INVENTION 66,962.

Mr. DONALD A. MACKINNON (East Queen's) moved :: That that portion of the 49th rule which limits the time for receiving petitions for private Bills be suspended in reference to the petition of Siefried Gironcoli, presented this day, praying for an Act declaring that letters patent of invention No. 66,962 remain valid, in accordance with the recommendation contained in the 14th report of the Select Standing Committee on Standing Orders, and that it be read and received forthwith.
He said ; I may explain that this man, on account of illness at the time the patent expired, was unable to attend to business at all, and he was under the disadvantage in this matter of living far from Canada, in Austria. As soon as he became well he took immediate steps to continue his patent. The matter has gone before the Committee on Standing Orders and they have examined the evidence and reported in favour of receiving the petition.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 120) respecting the Montreal Terminal Railway Company.-Mr. Demers, by Mr. Marcil (Bonaventure.)
Bill (No. 121) to incorporate the Century Life Insurance Company.-Mr. Morrison.
Bill (No. 122) respecting the Ottawa Fire Insurance Company.-Mr. Rosamond.
Bill (No. 123) to incorporate the Kingston and Dominion Central Railway Company.- Mr. Harty.

[Stage Direction]
to introduce Bill (No. 124) to amend the General Inspection Act.
Robert Laird Borden: Will the right hon. gentleman (Sir Richard Cartwright) be good enough to explain the purport of the Bill ?


Sir RICHARD CARTWRIGHT.: The object is to reduce the penalties capable of being inflicted for violation of the law with respect to binder twine which now may run up to hundreds of thousands of dollars in a single case. There is also a provision to allow the inspector to enter premises where binder twine is being sold, for the purpose of making an examination.


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

[Stage Direction]
Sir WILFRID LAURIER (Prime Minister*. I informed my hon. friend (Mr. R. L. Borden) that we would take up to-day the estimates of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Fisher). But, if there is no objection, I would like to deal first with the resolution of which notice has been given, and which it is necessary to pass as a preliminary to the introduction of the Bill regarding the inspection of seeds. Of course, if my hon. friend (Mr. R. L. Borden) objects I will not press it.
Robert Laird Borden: I understand that this is merely for the purpose of introducing the Bill. I think there would be no objection to introducing it now because, even if discussion is necessary it can take place upon the Bill itself.


Wilfrid Laurier: Quite so.
Hon. SYDNEY FISHER (Minister of Agriculture) moved that the House go into Committee of the Whole to consider the following proposed resolution
Resolved, that it is expedient to pass an Act restricting the sale of seeds of cereals, grasses, clovers, or forage plants, sold for the purpose of seeding, containing the seeds of certain weeds ; establishing a standard of timothy, red clover, and alsike seeds marked No. 1, or otherwise designated as being of first quality ; providing for the examination of such seeds, and providing penalties for contravention of the Act.


Mr. A. C. BELL (Pictou).: I understand that it is not the purpose of the minister to discuss the matter at this time.


Mr. FISHER.: No, I merely wished to have the resolution passed upon which to base the Bill.


Mr. JAMES CLANCY (Bothwell).: Do 1 understand the hon. gentleman to say that he does not wish discussion to take place on the Bill ?
Sir RICHARD CARTWRIGHT (Minister Mr. FISHER. What I suggested was that of Trade and Commerce) moved for leave the resolution might be passed without dis-Sir WILFRID LAURIER.

cussion. On the ordinary stages of the Bill a full discussion can take place. Of course, it is quite within the power of the House to discuss the resolution if it desires to do so.


Mr. JAMES GILMOUR (East Middlesex).: I would ask if the Bill the minister proposes to introduce differs from the Bill introduced last session, and if so, in what respect ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I may say in reply to the question that the Bill which was before the House last session was printed in large numbers and distributed throughout the country to those who are engaged in the seed grain, to farmers and to the various agricultural organizations. As a result of that distribution and the discussion which arose and of various interviews which I had with seedsmen I propose to introduce some modifications to the Bill. I may say that the chief of these is the result' of a recommendation made by the seedsmen. The hon. member for Hamilton (Mr. Barker) brought a deputation of seed merchants to interview me on the subject of this Bill. After a short discussion of the whole subject a proposition was made that we should not undertake to define different grades of seeds, but that a minimum grade should be defined, and that change is made in this Bill. While I adopted the suggestion of the seedsmen in this regard I thought it was best that in addition to the minimum grade we should also define a maximum grade, so that if a person wished to sell seed as of No. 1 quality, he coukl not do so unless these seeds were up to a certain standard. There are some slight differences in the wording of the new Act and some parts of the original Bill are omitted, but this is the chief difference from the Act of last session. Of course I will have the Bill printed before I take up the discussion.


James Clancy: I think.that some further modification would naturally be looked for in the hon. gentleman's Bill. The recommendation of the seedsmen is a very important one and is very likely one that should be accepted. But the hon. Minister of Agriculture will remember that his Bill was a very drastic one as affecting those who sold seed to the seedsmen. It also interfered with the business relations of a domestic character that arise between farmers themselves. I hope that when the hon. gentleman's Bill comes down it will be entirely shorn of those objectionable features that appeared in the Bill of last year. Of course I shall wait for the discussion until we see the Bill.


Adam Carr Bell: Would the hon. minister explain what he means by saying that in addition to a minimum quality or grade he has thought it advisable to adopt a maximum ? As I understood the representation of the seed trade they desired that there should be but one class of marketable seed,
all below that being unsaleable. I would understand from what the minister now says that he has not only adopted that view but has thought it well to establish a higher grade, a maximum.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: The minimum grade Is a quality of seed below which no seed shall be sold at all ; then in addition to that it is proposed that nobody shall be allowed to sell seed marking it as of the first or highest quality unless it comes up to a certain standard. That is all there is in it.


Adam Carr Bell: That would be practically two grades.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: It would be one below which no seed could be sold and then there would be also a simple statement in the Bill that nobody shall be allowed to sell seed, marking it of the first qualitv unless it comes up to a certain standard. In reply to the hon. member for Both well (Mr. Clancy) I might say that the seedsmen did make representations to me for changes in the Act of last session but the other people to whose attention this Bill was drawn have practically unanimously endorsed the provisions of the Act. I have had dozens and dozens of resolutions sent forward from various agricultural meetings and organizations all over the country endorsing the provisions of the Act as submitted last year and asking that that Act should be made law.


Adam Carr Bell: Might I ask if it is the intention of the minister to put the Bill through this session ?	[DOT]


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I hope so.


Adam Carr Bell: And is it the intention that some time in the future shall be fixed when it shall come into operation or will it come into operation immediately ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: It will not come into operation until July 1st, 1905, under the provisions of the Act as I propose to introduce it.
Motion agreed to and House went into committee on the resolution.


Mr. SPROULE.: Is it confined to the three seeds mentioned in the resolution ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Oh, no. It is confined to the seeds of cereals and grasses ; timothy, clover, and alsike.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: It does not take in turnip seed for instance ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: No.


Mr. BRODER.: Where is this seed to be graded. Who is to grade it ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: It will be graded by those who deal in it.


Andrew Broder: But no two will grade it the same.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: That is what the seedsmen want to be able to do.


James Clancy: I would like to ask the minister if he will lay on the table the correspondence and resolutions to which he made reference in order that the committee may have the advantage of carefully going through these papers, so that w'lien the Bill comes up for discussion, we will know the purport of the responses which the hon. gentleman has received from those to whom the Bill was sent out.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I will be glad to give the House communication of all this correspondence.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: How is it intended to enforce the Bill ? By inspectors appointed to examine the seeds all over the country or how 1


Sydney Arthur Fisher: That was not the intention ; the intention is to maintain a seed inspection bureau or laboratory as it is called in the department at Ottawa to which samples *of seed that are being sold may be sent for inspection and the report of that laboratory will be held to be evidence in regard to. the quality of the seeds.


James Clancy: Did I understand the minister to say he would lay that information on the table at once or when the Bill comes up for discussion ? I of course had reference to the committee having possession of it as early as possible.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I will try and get copies of the correspondence. It is very voluminous and I do not know if the hon. gentleman would like to have every letter and resolution laid on the table.


James Clancy: Every one that is of importance.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I will try to have a number of representative letters copied and shall lay them on the table.


James Clancy: For and against if there are any.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Certainly, fair representations of the correspondence.


Mr. LENNOX.: I have no objection to the resolution passing, but I would like the minister to look into the question of the distribution of this Bill, and satisfy himself and the committee that there was a general distribution of it to the farmers of the country and to be able to satisfy the committee when we come to deal with the matter that that distribution actually took place. I took occasion last session, when this question was before the House, to call the attention of the minister to the desirability of having a full consultation with the farmers before the Bill was put through. It is important. I am not for a moment questioning the good faith of the hon. minister when he tells the committee that Mr. BROJVER.
there has been communication between the farmers and the department during the recess, but I wish to call the attention of the hon. minister to the fact that in the riding that I represent I have not been able to find any trace of there having been any distribution of the Bill. It is a distinctly agricultural riding and I am inclined to think that my hon. friend the Minister of Agriculture will agree with me that it is a very important agricultural riding.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Hear, hear.


Haughton Lennox: I attended some farmers' institutes and at one of them I called the attention of the meeting to this Bill as being of importance in the interest ot the farmers concerned. But as far as I could ascertain from what was said at the meeting, none of the farmers who were members of the institute had obtained a copy ot the Bill. I would like the hon. minister to assure the committee that this understanding will be complied with.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I certainly will.


Mr. JABEL ROBINSON.: Mr. Chairman, in the section in which I live, one of the deputations to farmers institutes engaged in a special discussion of the seed questiou, and the gentleman who addressed the institutes upon that subject was very well posted in regard to it, but the farmers generally knew nothing about the Bill. I have no doubt it was distributed amongst seed merchants and perhaps amongst those who were speaking to the farmers' institutes, but I do not think the farmers generally have seen the Bill.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I have not under my hand at this moment the exact details of the distribution of the Bill, but I gave instructions that it be sent to the officers of farmers institutes and unless I am mistaken it was sent to the officers of every farmers' institute in the country. There were 30,000 copies printed and they have all been distributed except a very few; I venture to say that 29,000 copies have been sent out since last session and they were as much as possible sent to farmers and the representatives of farmers. I may say to my hon. friend from South Simcoe (Mr. Lennox) that we have in the department long lists of individual farmers who have corresponded with the department. The name of anybody who corresponds with the Agricultural Department on an agricultural subject is added to the list which is kept in the department, and documents in a distribution such as this are usually sent to everybody whose name is on that list. I cannot say who they are but it depends upon the individual's activity in connection with agricultural subjects. Then again we have a list of specialists, such as orchard-ists. dairymen, live stock men and so on and these lists were consulted for this dis-

tribution in addition to sending a copy of the Bill to the various agricultural associations throughout the country.


Mr. WRIGHT.: Mr. Chairman, I may say ' that in the riding of South Renfrew at tlie farmers' institutes which were held there last year two of the specialists at the various institute meetings which were held made this their particular topic of conversation. Copies of the Bill introduced into this House last year, were distributed amongst the members of the farmers' institutes and when the time comes for this Bill to be discussed, I will be prepared to produce resolutions unanimously passed by every one of the farmers' institutes in South Renfrew in favour of this Bill.


Mr. BLAIN.: How many copies of the Bill were printed for distribution in Canada ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I think 30,000 copies.
Resolution reported, read the second time and agreed to.
Mr. FISHER moved for leave to introduce Bill (No. 125) respecting the inspection and sale of seeds.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, ahd Bill read the first time.
INQUIRIES FOR RETURNS-BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE, &c.
Robert Laird Borden: Mr. Speaker, before the Orders of the Day are called I would like to mention to the government that I asked some time ago to have the instructions to the members of the Joint High Commission laid on the table of the House, and I understood the Prime Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) to say that there would be no objection. As far as I e.m aware they have not been brought down although possibly I may have overlooked them.
Sir WILFRID LAURIJ1R. No they have not.


Robert Laird Borden: Another matter that 1 desire to speak of is the Alaskan Boundary Award. I understood it was the intention of the government to issue a blue-book, or at all events to bring down the correspondence and other documents which may be necessary for a thorough comprehension of the whole subject and to have them printed so that they will be available for members of the House a reasonable time before prorogation. I trust the government still have this in mind. We have now been more than two and a half months m session and 1 have expected that these documents would have been placed before the House before the present time.
Another matter which I would like to bring to the attention of the government is that, as I am informed, there is a great deal; of uncertainty among militiamen
throughout the country as to the remuneration or pay which they will receive for their attendance at the camps which are now being formed. I have no personal knowledge of the subject but those who are more familiar with such matters than I am have said that this is a matter which should be made plain and if it is not made plain it will interfere to some extent with the successful forming of the camps in some parts of the country. 1 do not recollect the exact provisions of the Bill which is now before the House and which makes some alteration in the pay, but I gather from what has been said to me that the men throughout the . country want to know whether or not the increased rates of pay will apply to the service of the men in the camps which are now being formed.
Another matter as to which I would like to ask information from the government is as to the date at which we may expect the Budget speech. The right kon. leader of the government has already told us that we might expect it some time during the ensuing week in all probability. Possibly now that we have finished the debate upon the railway measure the government are in a position to give us the exact date on which we may expect the Budget speech.


Wilfrid Laurier: If the instructions with regard to the Joint High Commission have not yet been placed upon the table, I am sorry to say it is because of an oversight, but I will attend to it immediately. The Alaskan Boundary papers have been prepared and will be ready at an early day. I will call the attention of the Minister of Militia to the remarks made by the hon. gentleman concerning his department. As to the Budget speech, I will ask the Minister of Finance to deal with that himself.


William Stevens Fielding: The right hon. gentleman intimated some time ago that the Budget would probably be brought down next week. If we should find ourselves able to bring it down next week it will probably be on Thursday, but I would prefer not to make a definite announcement at present. Early next week an announcement will be made.


Robert Laird Borden: It will not be before Thursday.


William Stevens Fielding: Not before Thursday, and it may be that wre will name a day early in the following week, but the present intention is to have it next tveek and probably on Thursday.


Mr. URIAH WILSON.: The right hon. gentleman informed me the other day that the voters' lists are being printed as fast as they are received. I have the report of the Clerk of the Grown in Chancery in reference to the lists for Lennox and Addington, and I find that these lists were all in on the 9th of December, and were sent to

the Printing Bureau on the 11th of December. I have not received the lists up to this date.


Wilfrid Laurier: I stated to the House the information I had received from the King's Printer, that the lists were printed as fast as they came. Yesterday afternoon I wrote to the King's Printer calling his attention to the matter, and I expect to have a further-statement to make at an early date.


Haughton Lennox: When may I expect to receive the return in reply to an order of the House for the papers connected with the cattle-guard commission. I do not expect that the Prime Minister will be able to answer as the Minister of Railways is not in the House, but I want to call the attention of the government to the matter. On the Gth of April last session, now over a year ago, the return was ordered, and on the 20th of May following, the premier promised he would look into the matter. On the 5th of this month the Minister of Railways told me that the return was ready to be brought down, and I acted upon his suggestion to renew a formal motion calling for it. I have not yet received the papers. The First Minister will recognize that I am not unfair in pressing this matter now. I did not understand his answer yesterday, but I supposed more weighty matters were engaging his attention, and that I could not receive recognition.


Wilfrid Laurier: My kon. friend is not fair in saying that he did not receive recognition yesterday. I wrote to the Department of Railways immediately, and I am informed that the report will be ready on Monday, so that we will probably have it on Tuesday.


Haughton Lennox: All I had to judge by yesterday was that the right hon. gentleman only bowed his head, and I did not know what that meant.


Robert Laird Borden: Some time ago I called the attention of the Prime Minister to the importance of our receiving the report of the commission as to certain concessions in the Yukon. The right hon. gentleman said, after conferring with the Minister of the Interior, that the answer would be given on the following day.


Wilfrid Laurier: And that was yesterday.


Robert Laird Borden: I did not know it was so recent, but that is all the more reason why I should mention it to-day. I am glad to be able to remind my right hon. friend now, so that he may overcome the forgetfulness into which he has lapsed.


Wilfrid Laurier: I immediately spoke to the Minster of the Interior who was present in the House, and he told me


Uriah Wilson: that he would be able to make a statement to-day. He is not present at this moment, but I will remind him of it.


Mr. TISDALE.: The Minister of Militia has promised to bring down the regulations, so that we may intelligently discuss the pay of the militia, and I would remind the hon. gentleman that we shall expect these papers before that discussion takes place.



SUPPLY.

[Stage Direction]
House in Committee of Supply.
For renewing and improving Canadian exhibit at Imperial Institute, London, $8,000.
['And I would remind the Minister of Agriculture that there are answers to certain questions I asked to be brought down, the first, a statement showing the permanent and temporary clerks employed in the Department of Agriculture in the years 1896, 1903-4 ; and second, a statement of the membership of the Northwest Agricultural Societies for the years 1902, 1903-4.']
James Clancy: I would remind the Minister of Agriculture that we will require the report on the experimental farms, before proceeding with the item in reference thereto.
iMr. FISHER. I have just laid the report of the experimental farms on the table. I do not propose to take up the item for a few days, so that hon. gentlemen opposite may have an opportunity of studying the report.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: W,hat exhibit have we there ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: 
Mr. POPE.: For all time ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: 
Rufus Henry Pope: Is that curator a Canadian ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Yes, Mr. Harrison Watson. He was appointed to the institute on its organization eight or ten years ago, before I came into office, and has continued there since.


Rufus Henry Pope: These exhibits must be sick if they need a curator to look after them.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: They are pretty sick. They were contributed by the provinces, but they had been allowed to get into a very bad condition, and it was in consequence of representations made by leading Canadians who had been in England and had seen these exhibits, after discussing the matter with Lord Strathcona, we decided that we ought to make the exhibits a credit to the country. The provincial authorities have one by one ceased to do anything for the Imperial Institute, have dropped their contributions, and have failed to keep up the exhibits to the proper standard.


James Clancy: Why was that ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I cannot account for it except that their interest in the institute seemed to be waning. I may say that since I have been in office, I have been approached from time to time by various provincial authorities, who asked that the Dominion should take over the exhibits, because they found that the existing arrangement was not satisfactory, and that they did not see their way to keeping the exhibits in proper condition. I requested the High Commissioner to ask the provincial authorities to send such contributions as they would be prepared to make. I think they have ceased contributing altogether, but I trust that they will send some money every year, and whatever they send may relieve this vote to that extent, and enable ns to prepare a better and more complete exhibit.


Mr. INGRAM.: Are there not exhibits of a similar character in the Immigration office ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Yes, somewhat similar. They are prepared by the Department of 118
Immigration. I may say that our High Commissioner in London, Lord Strathcona, who was one of the governors of the Imperial Institute, I think since its inception, and has always taken a deep interest in it, has urged very strongly that the Canadian exhibit should be maintained as a creditable one. This Imperial Institute has been essentially an exhibit of the products and resources of the different portions of the empire ; and under the new organization, I think a great deal more effective work can be done than has been done in times gone by. It proposes to have a suitable place in the city where exhibits can be made from time to time by the different colonies and the different participants in the work. The institute has a strong staff of technical officers who are at the disposal of the various colonies for the purpose of investigating into the value of different products. A few years ago I sent over for a report on specimens of a plant which is very common in Canada, and which was believed to be a good fibre plant for rope-making. I got a report which shows that the plant could be utilized for ropemaking to a very great advantage. It is a plant called the sweet clover and is very much dispersed in the province of Quebec and has lately shown itself to a considerable extent in certain parts of Ontario.


James Clancy: And a great evil it is, too.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Yes ; if we could utilize it, that would lessen the evil.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Does the hon. minister say that we have no exhibit at this institute 7	.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: None of the work of my department.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: This item is for renewing and improving Canadian exhibits ; but if we have none there, how can they be renewed ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: There are Canadian exhibits there, but not arranged by my de partment, and not provided for by any vot? of this parliament. The curator will keep any part of those exhibits fresh enough to be of use, but I am afraid that practically we will have to prepare a new exhibit.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Do not these belong to the provinces, and what authority have we for renewing and repairing them ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: The provinces have asked us to take them over and provide for them.


Mr. TAYLOR.: Will the hon. gentleman tell us what he proposes doing with this $8,000 ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: 
Sydney Arthur Fisher: After the Wolverhampton and Cork exhibitions were over, there was a considerable collection of minerals, some of which were sent to the Imperial Institute, and Mr. Stewart, who was in charge at Wolverhampton, was employed to clean them up and work them over in suitable condition for that institute, where they are to-day.


Mr. OSLER.: About $6,000 goes in salaries ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: 
Edmund Boyd Osler: That leaves $6,000 for salaries and $2,000 for exhibits ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I would not say the $6,000 was for salaries.
Mr. OSIjER. At any rate, it would only leave $2,000 for exhibits. The exhibit there at present is simply disgraceful to Canada. I quite approve of a vote for this purpose, but I do not think that $2,000 will do much. I would rather see the whole thing struck out than have only $2,000 voted to supply the exhibits coming from Canada.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I quite agree with the hon. gentleman, but I hope we will yet have from the provinces some contribution. They made contribution to the imperial Institute funds. They paid Mr. Harrison Watson's salary. They also paid a little, though, in recent years very little, for their exhibits. I have requested the High Commissioner to still ask them for their contributions and he has done so. During the current year they did pay something, and, if they continue to pay-and we have no statement from them that they refuse to pay-it will be so much less to come out of this item, and will leave a larger amount than the $2,000 that I have mentioned. But, if they absolutely refuse to pay anything, we will have to pay the Mr. FISHER.
sums I have indicated. I quite agree that, if they' pay nothing, I shall not be able in one year, to get a thoroughly creditable exhibit for $2,000. But I hope to be able to use, before the end of the fiscal year, a portion of this year's vote, practically none of which has yet been expended. That vote was $8,000 and, up to the present time only about $60 has been expended. I shall not be able to expend all of it, but I shall expend as much as possible.


Edmund Boyd Osler: What is the nature of the exhibition ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: It has been, of course, of a permanent character. They have had a few exhibits of manufactured articles, a considerable exhibit of minerals-though not one that at all does justice to our mineral development - some agricultural exhibits, and some of timber and lumber. I have tried to utilize exhibits left over from the exhibitions that have been held. For instance, from the Wolverhampton Court Exhibition, we had some things left over that were quite suitable, and they are there to-day. In consequence of the changes going on most of the exhibits have not been unpacked, though some of them have been. I hope to utilize all. And, in the fall of the year I hope to utilize some of the exhibits'now in -St. Louis. That will not cost more than the freight from one place to the other. And, having the assistance of officers who are connected with exhibitions and who have had experience in gathering, packing and displaying exhibits, I hope we shall be able to do a good deal for $2,000.


Edmund Boyd Osler: Better have no exhibit at all unless you have a creditable one.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I quite agree with the hon. gentleman (Mr. Osier).


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I do not see how the minister can use the money in the way he has suggested in view of the way it is being voted. This is ' for renewing and improving Canadian exhibit.' If I understand the hon. gentleman correctly he proposes using about $6,000 of this money in salaries.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Not salaries.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I certainly so understood him.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: 
Thomas Simpson Sproule: What I object to is that this is not properly described. If this were voted for the Imperial Institute, London, it would be properly set out in the estimate. But if it is simply for renewing and improving the exhibit I do not see how the hon. gentleman can use it for any other purpose.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: So far as the strict meaning of the words is concerned it might he described a little better.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The object of any description is that we may understand what we are voting the money for.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I think that a number of payments could be perfectly well made under that item, but it might be better if it read differently. I will propose an amendment of the wording.


James Clancy: When we remember the expressions of almost disgust that we have heard from the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Fisher) many times in regard to this matter, I cannot but think that the hon. gentleman is going at it in a faint-hearted manner now. We have had no statement to-day as to what the other colonial governments are. doing and what the nature of their exhibits is.
There is no complaint about this contribution to the Imperial Institute if care is taken to make it a success. There are two courses open, as suggested by the hon. member for West Toronto (Mr. Osier)- either to abandon this exhibition entirely or make it one creditable to Canada. I am sure the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Fisher) will agree with me that there is a considerable disparity between $2,000 for exhibits and $6,000 for the privileges of the Imperial Institute. I do not say that we pay too much for those privileges, but paying so much, we should have opportunity for an exhibit that will bring Canada to the favourable attention of a fair proportion of the British people. At present there seems to be an indisposition in some quarters to contribute towards the institute. I think this government has had fair warning that there is apathy on the part of the province of Ontario at least, and probably on the part of other provinces. I would like to have the minister make a statement as to the general plan he intends to follow, and what encouragement we have to believe that this service will be a success. The exhibit should be made worthy of the word 'Imperial.' We should know what the other colonies are doing and should have reason to believe that Canada will take the place which she ought to take and which is her due. I think the minister will concede that we should at least have some comprehensive plan in sight in paying this money with a view to the future success of the Imperial Institute in which I hope we may bear a very considerable and important part.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: 
Rufus Henry Pope: What encouragement has the hon. gentleman to believe that they will continue to contribute ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Simply the fact that they have never notified1 the authorities in England that they are not going to contribute, and that within the last year they have contributed, although not to the full extent they used to do.


Rufus Henry Pope: Did they give one half the amount ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I could not say. Some of the provinces have contributed the whole and others I think have contributed nothing. I cannot say in the aggregate what the proportion has been.


James Clancy: The hon. gentleman has not stated the general plan of the Imperial Institute and the aggregate cost of maintaining it. I understand the cost is to be borne by the different colonial governments.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: 
Rufus Henry Pope: What are the services of these officials ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Anything sent there will be analysed and a report made on it commercially and scientifically.


Rufus Henry Pope: Are these reports published ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: They are not published, they are individual reports and will be sent to the people interested. If they were cf general interest I "would certainly take steps to see that they were published.


Rufus Henry Pope: The results are not published in any way by the imperial institute ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Not the individual reports. They would only give a report saying that so many investigations were made and perhaps group these as to the character of the investigation but they would not give the details.


James Clancy: It appears to me that everything has been subordinated to these technical examinations. I quite understand the value of such examinations, but I do n;olt think It would be impossible to have such examinations made on this side of the Atlantic so far as Canada is concerned. It occurs to me, speaking off-hand, that this should be rather the unimportant than the mainly important feature. The $0,000 which we are contributing seems to be mainly for this purpose.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: 
Rufus Henry Pope: What is that space ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Speaking from memory I should say that we have a length of gallery about 40 feet wide and nearly 400 feet in length.


Rufus Henry Pope: How does our space compare with that of other colonies 5


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I think it is about as large as any other. We have a considerable amount of space but much of our space was not very well utilized. We had a considerable amount of almost bare or vacant floor space and that was only tilled by the exhibits which I sent there from Wolverhampton. I have not been there since the exhibits were sent. When the hon. member for Bothwell says that I was rather half-hearted in the matter, I think he will see that such is not the case. Had it not been for the delay due to the transference of this institute from one organization to another, we would have had an exhibit there long ago, but while the transfer was going on, I could not get any information as to the details or as to the authority with whom to deal. When I sent communications to the old authorities they simply replied t,hat they could do nothing about them until the new organization was complete and therefore nothing could be done. This has been going on for two years.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: 


James Clancy: Is it completed now ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Yes.


James Clancy: 
Sydney Arthur Fisher: Yes.


James Clancy: What I was endeavouring to learn was our relative position with the other colonies. I assume there is space allotted to all the colonies, and that the colonies have been contributing less or more. And as to the new organization, I would like some statement from the hon. minister as to how it is composed.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: 
Mr. ARMSTRONG.: 
Sydney Arthur Fisher: My hon. friend does not appreciate the fact that these votes lapse. In the first place, the expenditure which he has reference to in the Auditor General's Report was for the year preceding, and there was a vote of $3,000 for that year. It Is for the fiscal year now current that we have a vote of $8,000, and I have spent only about $60 of that. I spoke of the stoppage in consequence of the transference of the institute, and this has completely stopped my expenditure and prevented me from doing anything about it. The consequence is that at the end of this fiscal year, unless I can manage now to spend some money in the preparation of exhibits, the whole of the $8,000, with the exception of the small sum which I have mentioned, will lapse.


George Taylor: 
Sydney Arthur Fisher: 
George Taylor: When was this arrangement made V


Sydney Arthur Fisher: The letter of Lord Strath-cona proposing this arrangement was written on the 23rd May, 1903. There was nothing paid, because the organization of the institute was not completed. It has only been completed within the last few months. I forget the exact date upon which I received information that it was absolutely completed, and that we could go ahead. I have not, therefore, paid anything to the institute under this arrangement.


Uriah Wilson: What do you expect to pay V


Sydney Arthur Fisher: 
Uriah Wilson: Does the minister propose to pay for the whole year ?
Mi-. FISHER, Certainly not. The payment will commence at the time the organization is completed. I will not pay any more than the amount due.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: l'ou will be overlapping the financial year.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: A payment made within the financial year is legal.


James Clancy: Is our contribution fixed, or is it changed from year to year ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: The High Commisisoner describes how he reached this amount. It was arranged altogether by the High Commissioner in London, and the government confirmed his action, but I took no part in the arrangement.


James Clancy: I would understand that the Imperial Institute as it was once known, is now swallowed up by the Imperial Board of Trade, and the question appears to have arisen as to whether these exhibits would be thrown into the junk shop or maintained without any view as to their value in future. I think it is a great mistake that the Imperial Institute should be put under the control of even a department of the Imperial government, because the result is that we lose our identity. If the Imperial Institute is to have any interest for us in future it ought to be maintained by the different colonies, or abandoned altogether. I regret very much to hear of this reorganization, because if we ever hope to make this exhibition worth a dollar, it is my personal opinion that we should have an Imperial Institute in fact as well as in name. Even if it is necessary for us to make a larger contribution to have a real Imperial Institute, I think we should do so. I do not know whether the minister was consulted as to the reorganization, but for my own part I cannot help thinking that it was not a wise move.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: The reorganization was dealt with by the authorities of the Imper-

ial Institute, but we were not consulted as to its advisability. Lord Strathcona was one of the directors, and his report would seem to show that he was in favour of the transference. We were asked whether we would continue to be represented and have an exhibit in the Imperial Institute, and we thought that we had better do so. I understand that an advisor}' committee representing the different colonies has been appointed and Lord Strathcona is a member of that committee. I would assume that the Board of Trade manages the Institute on the advice of this committee.


Rufus Henry Pope: What does the last annual report of the Institute say with regard to the contribution of the different colonies ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I have not got that report.


Rufus Henry Pope: I sent to the Libary and they said you had it.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: My deputy minister _ has brought it in just now. I find that this is not the annual report of the Institute, ,but a journal that is published by the Institute, and from a hasty glance at it I do not think it contains the information the hon. gentleman has asked.


Rufus Henry Pope: Surely they issue some kind of annual report.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: We have not received one in my department. I expect it is in the High Commissioner's office in London.


Richard Blain: I think censure is due somebody in Canada for the condition of this Imperial Institute. I do not think the committee wish to place the whole censure on the Minister of Agriculture, but the hon. gentleman is the duly person to whom we as a committee have to look for the proper expenditure of the money and the taking care of our exhibit in the old country. I notice that the hon. gentleman has the same story to tell this year that he had Hvo years ago, when he informed the committee that this institute had been handed over to the British Board of Trade.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: It must be pretty correct if it stands the test of two years.


Richard Blain: The only complaint we have to make is that the hon. gentleman has not been doing anything.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I could not, because the transfer had not been made.


Richard Blain: Two years ago the hon. gentleman stated that the transfer had been made to the Board of Trade ; and yet the hon. gentleman makes the statement this afternoon that the condition of the Canadian exhibit to-day is the same or even worse than it was two years ago. I think the minister should give this matter better attention. He was in the old country in 1901 and inspected the exhibit himself; and, according to his own statement, he came to the conclusion then Mr. FISHER.
that it was not at all creditable to Canada. He makes the same statement now'. I am not sure how this exhibit should be made ; but it seems to me that it should not be connected with the impei'ial government, but with the Canadian government. It is a Canadian exhibit, and I think the hon. minister should see that the government of Canada looks after it. My own opinion is that a certain amount of money should be expended by the Canadian government in making our exhibit of Canadian products in the old country. I rather think a large room should be obtained, where parties interested in Canadian products could send their goods for exhibition for a short time, after which they might be taken aw7ay and another class of products exhibited. Instead of our contributing money to the imperial government to be expended, we should expend it ourselves. If the minister would take hold of this matter w'ith some energy, he might place the exhibit in a [DOT] creditable condition, instead of coming before us year after year with the same old story and without any proposition to do anything. The hon. gentleman said the Board of Trade Department of the British government, which controls the Imperial Institute was something like an omnibus department, and last year he said it was something like the Department of the Minister of Trade and Commerce of Canada.
I should think he should be more careful of the feelings of that hon. gentleman ; who, I thought, occupied a more creditable position than that of the head of an omnibus department.


James Clancy: The charge is a serious one against the Minister of Trade and Commerce. It means by an easy translation that he carries on a junk shop.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: An old curiosity shop.


James Clancy: If it were not a well-known fact that the hon. the Minister of Trade and Commerce is an exceedingly amiable gentleman, we w'ould have had his protest long ago ; but he has borne the imputation with Christian forbearance. I w'ould like to ask the hon. the Minister of Agriculture whether before he becomes irrevocably committed to any scheme, that money might not be better applied in arranging an exhibit that would be purely Canadian. I think we should all look forward with some hope that, as the interests of Canada grow and expand, some definite plan for a creditable exhibit shall be decided upon. We have not heard from the minister anything holding out hopes of success even under the new organization. He tells us that it is under the Board of Trade, which is an omnibus department, a sort of receptacle for worthless articles- things which are not good enough to keep, but which it is hard to throw away. While not objecting to the vote, I think that Canada should be committed to no plan of con-

tribution in the future unless we have some definite statement of what that plan is.


Haughton Lennox: I wish to speak to the Minister of Agriculture as a farmer talking to a farmer. I presume the hon. gentleman is a practical farmer, and to that extent there is a bond of sympathy between us. I undersand from the hon. minister's statement that we have to deal with the Department of the British Board of Trade. If I recollect aright, that department has not stood in very great harmony with the people of Canada in the past. I think it was the president of that Board of Trade with whom we had all the difficulty in regard to the embargo on Canadian cattle ; and therefore I think the Minister of Agriculture should have approached this proposition with a good deal of suspicion on behalf of the farmers of Canada. We are face to face jvith this position, as defined by the Minister of Agriculture this afternoon, that there is in England a department known as the Depart. ment of the Board of Trade, which takes up everything that nobody else wants to have anything to do with. How that department should be characterized I do not know. The Minister of Agriculture tells us that it is similar to the Department of Agriculture in Canada.
A year ago I understood the Minister of Agriculture to state that this Imperial Institute was similar to the Department of Trade and Commerce, but the- same hon. gentleman used to contend that the Department of Trade and Commerce was perfectly useless. Ini my opinion, the Department of Agriculture would be of considerable value if properly administered. What we require is a re-organization all along the line. The minister has his attention distracted by too many things. The Census Department itself would distract almost any hon. gentleman by its iniquities, enormities and anomalies. What I do claim, speaking as a farmer to a farmer, is that we should have something distinctive for the farmers of Canada, both in the Department of Agriculture here and in whatever affects our farmers in England or elsewhere. I do not think that the farming community is being fairly represented in the Imperial Institute. As far as I can understand, this exhibit is not calculated to be beneficial to the farmers of Canada but is in such a condition that it is rather likely to be detrimental than otherwise, and some other system should be adopted. The hon. minister, I think, will agree with me that we should have a department for farming interests alone and not one in which everything that has no other domicile is dumped. The fact that such is the case in the Department of Agriculture probably explains why farming interests are not as satisfactorily dealt with in that department as they should be. It cannot be due to any defect in the head of that department. I have the sineerest regard, as a farmer myself, for the hon. gentleman who represents the Department of Agriculture. Any shortcomings he has; exhibited in the past I can only attribute to the fact he has brought out so clearly this afternoon, that the Agricultural Department is a dumping ground for everything not required elsewhere.


George Taylor: My hon. friends from Bothwell, Peel and Marquette, have put a number of questions to the hon. gentleman which he will have to answer, and I presume he will answer them as well as one I am about to put to him now. On page D-18 of the Auditor General's report, I find that he spent up to the 1st of June, 1903, in connection with the Canadian exhibit in the Imperial Institute in London $1,042, less paid by the Wolverhampton and Cork Exhibition $360.01, leaving a balance of $681.99. Turning to page D-21, I find the following items in connection with AVolverhamp-ton and Cork exhibition ; ' Detailed under Imperial Institute (Page D-18) $360.01.' I do not understand this reference, but I do notice in connection with the Wolverhampton and Cork exhibitions a great many articles purchased, and that at the close of those exhibitions some of these were disposed of. On D-19, I find the following purchased : from Phillips & Jones, 18J yards carpet. $13.14 ; 9 feather dusters, $16.88 ; 14 yards table baize. $8.65 ; 3 cocoa mats, $33.70 ;	16 yards linoleum. $5.35 ;
sundries,. $2.81. Total $80.53. Looking up the details of the goods sold, I find none of these articles mentioned. What became of them ? I also find at page D-19 a purchase from Hiram Walker & Sons of 2 cases Canadian Club whisky, $20.93. I find that these goods have not been sold. Would the hon. minister explain why he purchased to take over with him to the exhibition at Wolverhampton two cases of whisky and whether he consumed it all himself or treated his friends? The farmers and the temperance people will want to know why they should pay for two cases of whisky for the hon. minister.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I am afraid I shall have to ask my hon. friend to wait until I can make inquiry. I do not know whether my hon. friend or some of his colleagues visited that exhibition or not.


George Taylor: The hon. gentleman is surely responsible for the purchase of these goods and would not have bought this whisky unless he needed it for his own use.


Mr. COCHRANE.: Is the hon. minister not responsible for the expenditure ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Certainly.


Edward Cochrane: Then he is responsible for the purchase of that whisky. I could understand why the hon. gentleman should smile so benignly if he had a hooker himself, but I do object to his spending the

people's money in this way and then going around the country parading himself as the head of the prohibitionists. But that is just like the party to which he belongs- deceitful in all things and desperately wicked. The idea of his taking the people's money and spending it in this way and then coming here and smiling so blandly and saying he is not responsible. Who drank the whisky ? It is very easy to shake your head when there is not anything in it.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Perhaps there was nothing in the whisky.


Edward Cochrane: 
Sydney Arthur Fisher: The vote of $8,000 in the tirst column is to spend between the 1st of July and the 30tli of June next. Practically none of that has been spent. If this vote passes, I can devote a part of the money of this year, which I may be able to spend before the 1st of July, but I have no right to spend one cent of it one minute after midnight on the 30th of June next.


Mr. CLARE.: Have you the power to pay ahead ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: 
George Adam Clare: Then my argument is correct, that it is possible for the Minister of Agriculture to use last year's vote for this year's business.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Oh, no.


George Adam Clare: You cannot make anything else out of what you have said.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I have to-day $8,000 at my disposal to spend before the 1st of July next, but it is impossible to tell just how much of that I may be able to spend. After the 1st of July next, if this item is adopted,
I will have $8,000 to spend in the ensuing year, and I can only spend it during that jear.


George Adam Clare: We are still in the dark. The minister led us to believe that the $8,000 of last year would not be expended.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I said I did not spend it.


George Adam Clare: And that you were not going to spend it.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I did not say that.


George Adam Clare: 
Andrew B. Ingram: 
Sydney Arthur Fisher: 
Mr INGRAM.: 
Sydney Arthur Fisher: 
Andrew B. Ingram: Can the minister tell us the size of the new office compared with the size of the old ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I have not that; I have just a letter saying they have taken this place, and that it is a much larger and better office.


Andrew B. Ingram: The hon. gentleman has complained about the crisis in the affairs of the Imperial Institute, that it is of no practical service and very little use to the people of Canada. Two years ago his object in having a new place was to show canned goods at certain periods of the year and Canadian butter and cheese, also Canadian hams and beacon, etc., etc., while the old institute was to be filled with minerals and forest products. I would like to know what he has done with respect to the exhibition of canned goods and displays of that character.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: There has not been any display. I have not done anything about it, because the whole arrangement and organization of the institute was held in abeyance. I have not had an opportunity of doing anything in connection with it.


Andrew B. Ingram: I am bound to say the minister is open to some censure for great carelessness in this matter. In 1902 he explained what he proposed doing in conjunction with Lord Strathcona to make the office he had rented of some service to Canada. Last year he made the same explanation, and yet nothing has been done. The hon. gentleman must see that he is not pressing this matter as he ought to do, and certainly he is not pressing it as the people of Canada require it to be pressed. The immigration department found that the people in England were not able to see the produce of this country, which hindered immigration, and for this reason the department of immigration was forced to take up this work and obtain offices in order to show the products of Canada. The hon. gentleman is not pressing the matter, and in the interests of trade more life should be put into him. I should think that the stuff that was bought on the last occasion should have had a better effect than it has had, and should have put more life into the hon. gentleman.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: It is evident I could not have used it.


Rufus Henry Pope: Coming from the same section of the country as the Minister of Agriculture, I am surprised at the item we find here with regard to the product of Walker's distillery, and I am afraid that we have some evidence in the muddled condition of the mind of the Minister of Agriculture to-day, that that purchase was so satisfactory that it has been renewed at a comparatively recent date, and that the habit that some one acquired in the consumption of those two cases has become permanent. However, I trust that the country is not going to be called upon to pay the entire bill.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: No.


Rufus Henry Pope: It strikes me as peculiar. Of course, I know nothing of the peculiar moral standard of ministers of the Crown, but it struck me as peculiar that the Minister of Agriculture this afternoon endeavoured to make it very clear to us that it was possible for him to evade the law in regard to the expenditure of this first $8,000 for the first year. I think it would be much better that we should be frank in these matters, and from my knowledge of the Minister of Agriculture, that if anybody could find a loophole by which the law could be evaded, I would expect to find the hon. minister fully fit to fill that position. There may have been a position of a higher character taken by the hon. the minister in connection with that expenditure, but I, as a mere on-looker of the discussion, did not hear it. However, if that is the proper moral standard for ministers of the Grown to occupy in regard to their items, then I am sure the Minister of Agriculture will head the list. We seem to be proceeding in this matter with very little knowledge as to expenditures. The Minister of Agriculture acknowledges that he does not know, but has some hope that the provinces may do something towards bearing a portion of the burden in connection with this expenditure. He has no assurance of that, and is associating himself with an organization which he says has been in a very serious condition for the last two or three years, hardly worthy of any attention at all. I would be rather inclined to think the provinces, if they have had the same experience with the Imperial Institute that the Minister of Agriculture seems to have had, are not likely to contribute anything, and if they do not contribute anything and the Minister of Agriculture does use the $8,000 he is entitled to use, he says he is going to hurry and press the expenditure as rapidly as possible between now and the day of judgment, which comes very shortly, after which he has not the right to expend any of the previously voted money. I think it would be a great deal better if he should increase this $8,000 to a reasonable sum and not make an effort to evade the law, even by the tacit approval or sanction of thi3 House, when passing an item. I am convinced that this Imperial Institute is not

worthy of so much attention unless there is going to be a remarkable improvement in it. I have been endeavouring to get from the library of parliament some information in regard to this Imperial Institute, and the only report that I can get is a report of the Indian section of the Imperial Institute. In sending me this, Mr. Griffin says :
Nothing later than this has been published. The affair is very slow and not much use.
That is the opinion of the librarian of Canada, who has to deal with this institution. It is now going to come under a department that has not been very friendly to us in the past, in so far as the treatment of our live stock is concerned. Personally, I think that if we are to have an exhibition we must have a good one, and that $8,000 is not sufficient to provide a good exhibit in London. $2,000 would not more than pay for a first-class Canadian mineral exhibit in London. $8,000 is absolutely insufficient. I do not believe we are warranted in using the money we voted last year just for the purpose of using it, without taking time to exercise good judgment, or in trying to use it for the payment of a year's rent, which is not due until next year. That is a violation of the spirit and, I am inclined to think, the letter of the law. Under these circumstances, I do not think the minister is in a position which he should occupy. He states that this Imperial Institute has been, in the last two years, in a very imperfect and unsatisfactory condition, that it is now to be taken over by a new organization which hopes to do something with it, but which has not been very friendly to us. When I ask for the reports in order to glean something. and find absolute evidence of neglect on their part, positive evidence that they have not done what they ought to do, I think it would be just as well that the Minister of Agriculture should decide one of two things.
He has to decide, first, whether we will have an exhibit in London at all. If we are going to have that exhibit let us have it in connection with some tried institution that we know is going to he a success and let us put as much money behind it as is necessary to make it a success and to make it creditable to the Dominion of Canada. If not we are throwing our money away. Whatever money may have been expended lias been thrown away for the last two or three years as is witnessed by one or two hon. gentlemen in this House including the hon. minister himself who have borne testimony to the fact that the exhibition is unworthy of Canada. It is creditable to him to be desirous of improving it but he lias not made it clear in the minds of hon. gentlemen on this side of the House whether he is associating himself with an organization to-day that is going to make this exhibit in England as effectual for the benefit of Canada as we would like to see it.
Then, I do not think we get the fullest possible benefit as far as immigration is concerned from this exhibit. This exhibit may be good in the mercantile sense. It may be good by bringing us in touch with investors, mining speculators and men desirous of purchasing certain of our raw materials, but as an aid to immigration, I am sure that it is situated in the wrong part of England altogether. If we are going to have an exhibition there that is going to attract the people of England here as immigrants we must go to those sections of the country where the good immigrant lives, where we can come in touch with him rather than with the poor unfortunate who does not know how to labour. The poor unfortunate man who has been born of parents of more or less wealth, whose wealth has departed from them and who wish to throw that highly educated, inexperienced, impracticable young man upon the world, will come into touch with this London office, but as far as the small tenant or the agricultural labourer and the man who makes a practical settler in this country is concerned, we cannot expect to come in touch with him at this office. It may be worth this $8,000 to show our exhibits alongside of those of other colonies. It may be as the hon. minister said that we get a sufficient return from those specialists, those scientific gentlemen who are kept there to make these tests. The hon. minister spoke of two or three tests which he had made. I did not learn whether we gained anything of substantial value or not.


Mr. COCHKANE.: Yes, the sweet clover.


Rufus Henry Pope: Did they decide that it was fit for making rope ? Has that ever been developed ? The hon. minister should give us further evidence. Of course lie has given us this much evidence that the High Commissioner has recommended to our consideration the expenditure of this money. I am inclined to give fair consideration to the recommendation of the High Commissioner, but the High Commissioner uever seems to have opposed our having been associated with this Imperial Institute when it was in a wrecked condition. Consequently, perhaps, the High Commissioner has not studied that question as closely as he ought to have done. I think it is due to this committee from the fact that we have been associated with what is recognized by the hon. minister and members of this House a.-, a defunct institution practically, and when we are going to join a new organization which promises us better things to be furnished with evidence, first, that these people are friendly to us, and secondly, that they are not harnessed up with the red tape that goes along with government in that country. My experience is that in everything associated with government in that country you have officers and red tape and a lot of nonsense that disgusts everybody


Rufus Henry Pope: who comes in contact with it. If a practical man desires to seek information from any officers of the government he finds that he has to deal with officers who do not know enough to get out of his way let alone give him the information which he seeks. This new creation, this new institute which we are joining may not have any of these old red tape ideas connected with it. I hope it has not, but I say that we should know before we spend this $8,000 what our position is to be. We should know what our space is to be in the building, we should know what the conditions are which are to be fulfilled, we should know precisely what advantages Canada is supposed to derive from this exhibit and particularly as we have had this exhibit there for a number of years past there must be some evidence somewhere in the Department of Agriculture, the Department of Trade and Commerce, or some of those junk shops, some traces at ljeast of some good that has been done to this country as a result of the expenditures we have made in this direction which would warrant us in continuing these expenditures in the future.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I would like to move to amend the wording of this item. in the direction suggested by my hon. friend from East Grey.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I might -suggest to the hon. minister that what ought to be done is to show in these estimates how much of this will be required, because, if I understand the hon. minister correctly, he does not propose to spend all of that ?8,000 this year. The balance that is not used will be spent by revote.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: The balance lapses and consequently does not come into the account to tlie Minister of Agriculture ?


Uriah Wilson: Where will we find the report which the High Commissioner made to the Minister of Agriculture ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: It was a letter from the High Commissioner addressed to me explaining the arrangement.


Uriah Wilson: I understand the Department of the Interior has an exhibit in London, and I judge from what I have read and from what I have heard before the Agricultural Committee that it is quite a creditable exhibit. I do not see why we should have two exhibits. It seems to me that it would be better to have one good exhibit than two poor ones, and I think it might be arranged to have one exhibit under one department so that we would have one good exhibit, one set of officials and one rent account. I would like to ask the hon. minister if the Interior Department as well as his department has an exhibit in London.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: This exhibit is a totally different one and under totally different
management. It is more for commercial purposes, for the purpose of giving information to the people of England as to our products which they may be able to utilize. Also, with regard to minerals, forestry and such things, it is a means of inducing the investment of capital in Canada. People who are trying to organize companies go there to see what Canada produces.


Uriah Wilson: But both are for the purpose of giving information to the people ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Yes.


Uriah Wilson: I do not see why they should not be under one management.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: They are (Designed to reach two different classes of people.


Uriah Wilson: But these two classes run into one another. I suppose the agricultural exhibit would be largely of the products of the soil, and the same must be true of the other. Surely it would be better and cheaper for the country to have them under one management. But there seems to be a difficulty because what belongs ito one department must not be interfered with by another. I do not know whether that is because the ministers do not agree well or not. Families should be able to live together and members of the same government should be able to exercise judgment in the management of the affairs of the country so as to avoid duplicating work and expense.
Amendment (Mr. Fisher) agreed to.


Haughton Lennox: I think it is due to the minister and to this committee that we should have some satisfactory explanation on this temperance question. It is not just to the minister that we should keep talking about something else and not give him a chance to explain what this charge for liquor is. The minister's reputation in the riding I represent hangs largely on his temperance record. I have had some difficulty in the matter. People say to me : He is not a satisfactory Minister of Agriculture. I reply :	But he is a good temperance man ? And so far, I have been able to maintain the position of the Minister of Agriculture-not without difficulty, vet with success. Of course, the people of South Simcoe are to be excused, for they have not the same opportunities that I have. They do not see the minister at close range as I am privileged to do, and so, I fear they do not appreciate him as I do. Now, I do feel that we ought to have some explanation of this item before we go much further. Two cases of liquor unexplained is more than the people of my riding can stand, owing to the strained relations that exist between them and the Minister of Agriculture. I trust that before the committee rises the Minister of Agriculture will give an explanation that will

enable me to justify his conduct to the people of South Simcoe.


Edward Cochrane: If it be in order I would move that a sample bottle of this purchase be laid on the table.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I understand there are various ways in which this matter could be treated, but I must. confess my lack of experience, and admit that I have no knowledge of the question.


Robert Laird Borden: In that case, it must still remain intact. And under the circumstances, we might let the item pass, on condition that the minister will produce the exhibit at a later date.
Some resolutions reported.



Thomas Simpson Sproule: In view of any further discussion that may take place I would suggest that the Minister of Agriculture should bring down the letter he received from the High Commissioner suggesting the arrangement that he has explained to us.


Andrew B. Ingram: And I would remind the Minister of Agriculture that there are answers to certain questions I asked to be brought down, the first, a statement showing the permanent and temporary clerks employed in the Department of Agriculture in the years 1896, 1903-4 ; and second, a statement of the membership of the Northwest Agricultural Societies for the years 1902, 1903-4.



ADJOURNMENT-BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Robert Laird Borden: I would like to ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Sir Richard Cartwright) whether it' is proposed to take government business on Monday, and, if so, what business we may expect ?


Richard John Cartwright: Monday will in ail probability be at the disposal of hon. gentlemen opposite chiefly ; but if our business is reached, there are certain Bills that will probably he proceeded with, and after that I suppose we shall go into supply, with the estimates of the Minister of Agriculture and possibly the Minister of Marine.


Mr. E. F. CLARKE.: Before the House adjourns, I would like to ask the hon. leader of the House if he will see that a copy of the communication issued to Judge Winchester in connection with the investigation into the allegation of the employment of aliens on the Grand Trunk Pacific is brought down on Monday.


Richard John Cartwright: I will call the Prime Minister's attention to it.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House adjourned at 6 p.m.
Haughton Lennox: Monday, May 30, . 1904.