1904-06-01

OF THE DEBATES OF THE HOUSE OF COMMONS OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA FOURTH SESSION-NINTH PARLIAMENT 4 EDWARD VIL, 1904 VOL. LXVI COMPRISING THE PERIOD PROM THE FIRST DAY OF JUNE TO THE FIFTH DAY OF JULY, INCLUSIVE OTTAWA PRINTED BY S. E. DAWSON, PRINTER TO THE KING'S MOST EXCELLENT MAJESTY ERRATA VOL. III.

[Stage Direction]
Col. 4724, 26th line from foot of column:-'Mr. W. S. Maclean' should read ' Mr. W. S. Maclaren.'	,
Col. 4843, 20th line from top:-'wipes out .. bounty added,' should
read ' would wipe out an additional bounty of 62 cents per barrel, and leave the producer at a disadvantage of 8 cents per barrel with two bounties added.'
Col. 5284, 24th line from top of column, after.:-' go into ' delete next line and substitute ' Committee of Supply, I desire to bring to the.'
Col. 5802, 26th line from foot of column, after:-' them worth' delete next
line from ' upon this subject . alluded to ' so that it will read ' I
did not think them worth alluding to.'
House of Commons Sebates


[Stage Direction]
Wednesday, June 1, 1904
The SPEAKER took the Ohair at Three o'clock.


Mr. RIVET asked :: 1.	Has the government given instructions to the Deputy Minister o{ Railways and Canals to. impure into the causes of delay in the construction of the Napoleon bridge over the La-chine canal ?
2 If so, has the deputy minister made a report on the subject ?
3.	If so, what is the nature of that report ?
4,	Is the government preparing to take the necessary steps to bring about the immediate execution of those works ?


Rt. Hon. Sir WILFRID LAURIER (Prime Minister).: I understand that the Railway Department is attending to this matter, but I cannot give the precise information that my hon. friend asks for to-day.


SITE FOR DRILL HALL AT ST. JOHN.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. DANIEL-by Mr. Taylor-asked :
1.	Did the Minister of Militia, or any other member of the government, ^authorize any officer of the militia, or other person in St. John, N.B., to obtain an option on the Chipman or other site in that city at any time ; the object in view being the location for a new drill hail ?
2.	If so, was such option obtained, and what was the price named ?
3.	Was an engineer officer sent to St. John, N.B., at any time within the last four years to report ot. the above-named Chipman site and other sites ?
4.	If so, what was his report ?
5.	Is it the intention of the government to erect a new drill hall in St. John, N.B. ?
6.	If sc, when will such construction be commenced, and on what location ?
Hon. Sir FREDERICK BORDEN (Minister of Militia and Defence) :: 1.	No, so far as the Minister of Militia is concerned.
2.	(a) An option was reported as having been obtained ; (b) The price asked for the whole property is not known to the department, but the sum of $3,250 was asked for the small lot on which the house stands.
3.	Yes.
4.	The chief engineer of the department proceeded to St. John to report on several proposed sites not owned by the government. Of such proposed sites he recommended the Chipman property. He did not report as to whether this site was to be preferred to the present drill shed site.
5.	Yes.
6.	Matter is under consideration.



MONUMENTS ON PARLIAMENT HILL.

Mr. HACKETT asked :: In view of his important services to the country, in the making of the Dominion, of his great talent and eloquence, and 'especially of his sterling patriotism, is it the intention of the government to honour the memory of the late Hon. Thomas D'Ar'cy McGee) and through him people of Irish birth and descent in this Dominion, by the erection of a suitable statue to him on Parliament Hill, as has been done in the cases of Sir John A. Macdonald, Sir Etienne Carter and the Hon. Alexander Mackenzie ?


Wilfrid Laurier: It is the intention of the government to erect on Parliament Hill monuments to the great characters in the history of the Dominion, and, of course, Mr. McGee would be included amongst them.



YUKON-EDMONTON ROUTE.

Mr. CLARKE asked :: 1.	In connection with the rush to the Yukon gold fields in 1897, were any communications received by the government, or any member thereof, in the year named or the following year, advocating the Edmonton route as a means of reaching the Yukon ?
2.	If so, from whom were these communications received ?
3.	What is the nature of these communications ?
4.	What action was taken upon them ?
5.	Did the government cause to be published a pamphlet descriptive of the Edmonton route to the Yukon ?
6.	Did the government cause a notice to be issued warning people of the dangers of the route in question to inexperienced persons ?


Hon. CLIFFORD SIFTON (Minister of the Interior) :: 1.	Yes.
2.	From the boards of trade of Edmonton, Winnipeg and London ; the legislative assembly of the Northwest Territories ; the



town councils of Edmonton, Regina and Winnipeg ; and the municipality of Springfield, Manitoba.
3.	They recommend the Edmonton route on account of the advantages which would accrue to Canada by its adoption.
4.	A small body of Northwest Mounted Tolice, in command of Inspector J. D. Moodie, was detailed to test the route in the year 1897. His report is contained in the annual report of the Northwest Mounted Police for 1898. A grant of $15,000 was voted by parliament during the session of 1898 toward the construction of a trail from Edmonton towards the Yukon Territory, which was expended by the government of the Northwest Territories.
5.	No pamphlet was issued especially dealing with the Edmonton route. A pamphlet entitled ' The Klondike Official Guide ' was prepared by Wm. Ogilvie, D.L.S., and published in 1898 by authority of the Department of the Interior. It contains a description of the various routes to the Yukon, and, among others, gives some description of the Edmonton route.
6.	The government neither advised nor discouraged travel by the Edmonton route. The information at the disposal of the government was placed before the public, so that1 travellers might judge for themselves.
MAIL SERVICE BETWEEN /CAPES TRAVERSE AND TORMENTINE.
Mr. LEE URGE Y-by Mr. Hackett-asked :
1.	How many men were employed in carrying the mails by the iceboats between Capes Traverse and Tormentine during the winter of 1904 ?
2.	What are the names and respective post office addresses of the men so employed ?
3.	What was the amount ef wages paid to each, and were they paid by the day or by the trip ?
4.	Who had the contract for carrying the mails between the shore and the iceboats at Cape Traverse during ,the winter of 1904 ; also between the iceboats and the shore ?
5.	How was said contractor employed, by so much per diem or by the round trip ?
6.	If by the day, how much was paid ? If by the trip, the cost of same ?
7.	What was the total 'amount paid to the contractor for said services ?
S.	When did this service commence, and on what date did it cease ; and on how many days were the mails carried by the capes ?
9.	On how many days did the steamships ' Stanley ' and ' Minto ' fail in crossing between Georgetown and Pictou during the winter of 1904, and what were the dates of same ?
10.	While mails were carried by the capes, on how many days did the boats fail in crossing ?


Hon. RAYMOND PREFONTAINE (Minister of Marine and Fisheries).: If the hon. gentleman will move for a return, the papers will be laid ou the table of the House in a very short time. The information is very voluminous.
GRAND TftUNK PACIFIC-EMPLOYMENT OF ALIENS.


Mr. R. L. BORDEN (Halifax).: Mr. Speaker, before the Orders of the Day are called, I would like to 'ask the government whether or not any counsel are being employed on the investigation which Is now proceeding before Judge Winchester ? I have only a knowledge of the character of the proceedings by what I see in the dally press, and I would gather from this that while the people are not represented by counsel the corporation particularly Interested is represented by counsel in some of the proceedings at least. I would not think that an investigation of that' kind would probably be very effective or that we would get at the bottom of the facts which we desire to be made public unless counsel are employed to assist the judge. A man in the judicial position of Judge Winchester, because he is assuming a judicial position in this investigation, could not very well be expected to properly cross-examine the witnesses called before him. I do not know what the character of the examination is except from what 1 observe in the dally press, but if the examination of these witnesses is of the character reported, then I would venture to say that the investigation will not amount to very much, and the facts will not be elicited. It is absolutely impossible for the government to establish the facts as they should be established if they simply have Important witnesses summoned before Judge Winchester and have that judge administer to these witnesses interrogatories of the somewhat mild and not very far-reaching character which are reported in the press. It may be that the press is not doing him justice, but the investigation is hardly worthy of the name if' it is going on as reported in the press. If the investigation is designed to be thorough, I would suppose that the facts would be put into possession of counsel, and that these witnesses would be subject to cross-examination, so that we may have a report In which parliament might afterwards place some confidence as having been thorough and exhaustive. It may he that counsel are employed, but the report In the press does not indicate that.


Wilfrid Laurier: I can give no information to my hon. friend upon this subject. I will have to confer with the Minister of Labour, and probably to-morrow, I will let my hon. friend know.


Mr. SAM. HUGHES.: While Judge Winchester is running around the country on a fool's errand, I would suggest to the Prime Minister that if he goes to work and gets Mr. Hays and the auditor of the Grand Trunk to have a statement prepared by one of their clerks, of the names of all the employees on this engineering staff, then in five minutes the House and the country will know who these gentlemen are and where


Mr. CLARKE.: they come from. That will not cost five Cents, whereas this commission of Judge Winchester, judging from other commissions, will cost the country probably several thousands of dollars, and will be a whitewashing, delaying institution when it is through.


Wilfrid Laurier: Does my hon. friend object to this commission ?


Samuel Hughes: I certainly do object to any such person being sent around this country, and I am satisfied that the taxpayers of this country will object to it. We don't want these judges taken from their jobs. We want them to attend to the business we pay them for doing, and it would suit the country better if they did that.



PERSONAL EXPLANATION-MR. WILLIAM ROCHE.

Mr. WILLIAM ROCHE (Halifax).: I rise for the purpose of making a personal explanation. Yesterday, in the course of the debate, I stated that the hon. member for Lennox had controverted some remarks which I had made. He said that he coukl'nt have done so, because he had spoken before me. I then said that that gentleman like some others in the House, after he had made his main speech, added a number of little speeches or speechlets. 1 afterwards said that I was merely speaking from memory, and if my statement was not correct, I would make any explanation necessary to the hon. gentleman. I was not certain at the time, but the hon. gentleman (Mr. Wilson) was followed by my hon. friend from East Elgin (Mr. Ingram), who made the following remarks :-
I would remind the junior member for Halifax (Mr. William Roche) that he is mistaken when he thinks that the hon. member for Lennox followed him last year with his speech or even with a speechlet. There is no record of either such speech or speechlet. But I can tell him that the hon. gentleman who did follow him and who criticised his language very severely was the hon. member for Alberta (Mr. Oliver).
That was a direct contradiction of what I had said, and I take the liberty now of referring the hon. gentleman to page 610 of the Debates on which he will see that the hon. member for Lennox made three little speechlets in the course of the debate, and that on page 615 he made five additional little speechlets. Now, my reputation being assailed and I have been directly contradicted without warrant, an explanation is due from the hon. member (Mr. Ingram), and if that is the method in which he pursues investigation, then if he contradicts me on some future occasion, he had better have his facts more under control of his volition.


Mr. INGRAM.: I still adhere to the statement I made yesterday, and the record will prove my statement to be correct. The hon. gentleman from Lennox was afterwards 1264
speaking on an item in the estimates, and which affected the question of immigration.


William Roche: It was the same debate on his motion, and he afterwards reaffirmed his previous statement.


Andrew B. Ingram: The record will prove that the statement I made yesterday was correct, and if the record does not prove that I am willing to apologize. I defy the hon. gentleman from Halifax (Mr. Roche) to read from the record exactly the statements made by the hon. gentleman from Lennox.


William Roche: My hon. friend said that the hon. gentleman (Mr. Wilson) made neither speech nor speechlet, but the record shows that he made eight speechlets.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Read.


William Roche: I have not the book here ; the gentlemen on the other side of the House have it.



MONTREAL TURNPIKE TRUST-TOWN OF WESTMOUNT.

Mr.  L. A. A.@: RIVET (Hochelaga) moved for :
Copies of all correspondence exchanged between the Department of Finance and the town of Westmount, concerning the purchase of debentures of the Montreal Turnpike Trust.
He said in making this motion, I want to draw the attention of the government to the position which the town of Westmount occupies with regard to the Montreal Turnpike Trust. Some time ago the question of the Montreal Turnpike Trust was raised in this House by the hon. member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk), I do not intend to reopen that question; I want simply to state the fact that a few years ago the town of Westmount made a commutation with the Montreal Turnpike Trust, whereby the tolls which existed in that municipality were commuted in an annual sum that was calculated according to tbe amount of interest on the capital of the debentures covering the portion of the road situated within the limits of the municipality of Westmount. The capital of such debentures was about $6,800 on which the interest at six per cent was $408 per year, which sum has since been annually paid by Westmount to the Montreal Turnpike Trust, under that commutation, &c., &c. Under that commutation the town of Westmount secured the control, to a certain extent of that portion of the road within its limits, and the toll-gates were removed. By that commutation the town of Westmount undoubtedly bettered its position, because the toll-gates were an encumbrance, not only to the citizens of West-mount, but to the public at large. It is admitted on all sides that in the neighbourhood of Montreal and on the island of Montreal generally, the toll-gate system is antiquated, and the public at large are looking 1 for its removal.

However, 1 do not say that this system could he got rid of unless we are satisfied that the roads which are under the control of the Montreal Turnpike Trust would be kept in as good order as they are at the present time. I am not prepared to say that the Montreal Turnpike Trust has not kept these roads in good order. Far from that, it is a well known fact that the system of toll-gates of the Montreal Turnpike Trust has done a good deal in the way of improving the roads on the island of Montreal, and that fact has had much to do with the prosperity of the farmers around Montreal. I am not going to enter into that question. 1 wish simply to say that the town of Westmount wants to secure the full control of its roads, and in order to obtain that end, it asks to purchase a certain amount of the debentures held by the government. The object of such a purchase is to enable the town to set up in compensation a claim which would be equal to the trust's claim resulting from the above commutation. The town of Westmount has asked the trust to pay to it the capital of the commutation. The trust has refused to accept that offer, alleging want of authority to alienate the whole or part of the roads under its control. A statute was passed by the legislature of Quebec authorizing the town of Westmount to pay the capital to the trust. In spite of that statute, the Turnpike Trust refuses still to accept the capital of thei commutation. The town of Westmount now desires to buy an amount of the debentures equal to the amount of the commutation which has been made with the Turnpike Trust. Some correspondence has been exchanged between the town of Westmount and the Finance Minister, I understand, and I ask that a copy of that correspondence be laid on the table of the House. I think the town of Westmount is fairly entitled to better its situation, and to have a chance of securing control of the road that belongs to the Turnpike Trust.


Hon. W. S. FIELDING (Minister of Finance).: Of course, there can be no objection to the motion of my hon. friend from Hoche-laga (Mr. Rivet). The correspondence will be brought down. My recollection is that the town of Westmount asked us to fix a price on a portion of the securities of the Montreal Turnpike Trust. In our judgment, it was not good policy to fix a price for a portion of the securities ; but we were quite open to receive any proposal for dealing with the whole question from the provincial authorities, the municipalities, or any one else concerned in the administration of the roads. Therefore it was not deemed expedient to name a price to this municipality for a portion of the debentures. However, the correspondence will be brought down promptly.


Mr. F. D. MONK (Jacques Cartier).: This motion affords another instance of the ne-


Mr. RIVET.: cessity of the government interfering with regard to the road system on the island of Montreal. The situation of Westmount is a very peculiar one. It has commuted a considerable portion of what was formerly a road and is now an important street in that municipality for a certain sum paid to the Montreal Turnpike trustees. It pays every year a certain sum which is supposed to represent a proportion of the amount of the bonds which are now in the hands of the Dominion government. That is supposed to be the interest due every year to the Dominion government as the proprietor of those bonds. That interest, however, is not paid over to the Dominion government. It is kept and used for the administration of the road actually controlled by the trustees of the Montreal Turnpike Trust. The town is obliged, moreover, under its legal agreement to keep that piece of road in perfect order under the direction of the trustees, and it has no absolute control over it. It has to execute works upon that street -lay water pipes, gas pipes, sidewalks and pavements ; and it can do nothing at all because the street is not its property, not having been transferred to it under a title which would admit of its dealing with it as it deals with other streets in the municipality. As I have stated again and again in this House, these debentures or bonds are worth absolutely nothing, because they cannot be realized upon. The only recourse the holder of them, the Dominion government, would have, would be to take possession of the road and have a receiver appointed to collect the tolls. These tolls might pay a portion of the interest, but, on the other hand, the roadi would be absolutely neglected, and that state of affairs would not continue for more than a month or two. So that on the market these bonds are worth practically nothing. The town of Westmount has asked the Minister of Finance to fix a value upon the portion of bonds upon the piece of road which it holds under a commutation deed from the trustees, and it is ready to pay the amount of that valuation in order to obtain possession of the road at once, and deal with it as it does with the rest of the streets of the town. The Minister of Finance has refused to accede to that request. At first the Minister of Finance asked the town of Westmount to place a value on the bonds. The town did so, and since then, so far as I am aware, nothing has been done. The town offered more than the actual value of the bonds, but the offer has been refused by the department. I do not think that is fair. I think that the offer of the town to pay the market value of the bonds is a fair offer, and should be accepted by the department. I would like to add that the situation of the town of Westmount is very much the same as that of several other municipalities. There is a similar arrangement with the town of Verdun in my constituency. In

fact, in every suburb of Montreal, in order to get rid of the intolerable nuisance of toll-gates in a very much frequented locality, an arrangement of a similar kind has "been made ; and I think it would be the duty of the government, by an audit of the accounts of the trustees or by the appointment of a commissioner or in some other way to get at an absolute knowledge of the real value of these bonds, and accede to the request of these different municipalities.
I repeat, what I have frequently said on other occasions, that I think the Dominion government, which controls entirely the corporation of the trustees-because, although the corporation is incorporated by provincial authority, the government appoints the majority of the trustees-should inquire into the administration of the road system and use the power it possesses by the fact that it is the holder of all the bonds and thus controls the operation of the board, to have legislation adopted by the provincial parliament which would abolish once and for all the system of toll-gates, and give us the same system on the Island of Montreal as has been established around every important city of the continent of America.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr. J. B. MORIN (Dorchester).: Some time ago I put a question on the paper asking how much the government received annually from the Quebec Central Railway Company for the passage of its trains over the Intercolonial from Harlaka to Levis and any other services. I was asked to move for a return and therefore I beg to move for-
A copy of all statements, documents and papers showing how much the government has received annually from the Quebec Central Railway Company from 1896 to 31st December, 1903: (a) for the passage of its trains over the Intercolonial from Harlaka to Levis; (b) for the storage of its freight; (c) for water supplies; (d) for any other services.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr.  F. D.@: MONK (Jacques Cartier) moved for :
Copy of all correspondence between the post office authorities and Henry Goodrich, of Mount Royal Vale, in reference to his resignation as a post office employee?
He said :	This is a motion for papers
in connection with the resignation of a postal employee in the city of Montreal, who seems to have been compelled to tender his resignation under circumstances of very great hardship. The correspondence seems to cover only four or five pages and can be very easily brought down. I would like
it to be brought down as soon as possible so that when the estimates of the Post Office Department are taken up, I will be in a position to expose the grievance in this matter.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. SAMUEL BARKER (Hamilton) moved for :
Copies of all papers and documents in the possession ''Of the government, not already brought down, and of whatever character or description, relating to the proposed National Transcontinental Railway; to any proposals to construct the whole or any part of such railway; to any application for aid in the construction of all or any part and parts of such railway to the submission of any such proposals to parliament ; and all correspondence relating to the matters aforesaid.
He said ; This motion is almost identical with others made on previous occasions by members of this House, but I have inserted a few words in it, which are not to be found in the others. I have inserted them for a special purpose, and I desire to draw attention to them and also explain why t have thought it necessary to insert them. I ask for all the papers and documents in the possession of the government, not already brought down, relating to the Transcontinental Railway, ' of whatever character or description.' Those words were not in the previous motion, and as perhaps there may be documents and papers in the possession of the government which have not been brought down, because of the absence of these words, I make the Present motion.
An excuse was given for the non-production of a certain document to which I shall piesently refer, but in the meantime I wish to point out that I insert these words so that in the event of this motion being carried and the order made as asked for, there shall be no doubt whatever that tlie House will be entitled to every paper relating to this matter, of whatever character or description it may be. I think it must have been a matter of extreme surprise to members of both sides, after the answers we have had from time to time by the right hon. the First Minister to questions put him in this House and after the statement made by him regarding the production of papers-the very emphatic and most unusual statement made by him in that regard -that the Finance Minister a few days ago should have brought to this House a most important document which had been in the possession of the government some eighteen months, which came expressly v ithin the terms of the order of the House, hut which had been held back and concealed from the House. I do not think, having regard to the statement made, that I am going too far when I say that the existence
[Stage Direction]
of tUis document was concealed from tlie House. The right hon. gentleman, in answer to the hon. member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) said, after repeated questions, that every document had been brought down. He went on to say, ' without any equivocation at all,' that every paper had been produced, and he said that knowing at the time that the government was in possession of and keeping back a document of the utmost importance to the public interest in relation to the matter wo were then discussing. That document was an application on behalf of the Grand Trunk raeific, setting forth proposals for the construction of a large portion of the Transcontinental Railway, stating the terms and conditions on which it would build the proposed railway, stating them with almost as much exactness and particularity as you would find in an Act of parliament, and going on then to ask for aid from the government in the construction of the work.
One has only to read the terms of the proposition to see how exceedingly important the production of that paper was, how7 wrong it was to keep it back, and what bearing it would have had upon the discussion that went on for weeks last year and again for weeks during the present session. The document w7as dated as far back as November, 1902. The other day it was referred to almost as if it was a private letter addressed by two or three gentlemen to the right hon. Prime Minister personally. I propose to read two or three clauses to show how far such 'a description was from the fact. It begins :
Your petitioners desire to memorialize your government in regard to the construction o£ a first-class line of railway from the northern terminus of the Grand Trunk Railway, at, or near, North Bay, Ont., through to the Pacino coast.
That is the opening clause. It goes on :
It is considered very desirable in the public interest-
There are emphatic words showiug the public nature of the document.
And yet wTe were discussing this matter time and time again, week after week, without having the benefit of putting this testimony, from the very mouths of these gentlemen, before the House. Then, it goes on :
2nd. That your petitioners propose, as soon as authorized by your government, to undertake the construction of such a line from North Bay, Ont. (or some other point north thereof, to be defined), to the Pacific coast, the terminus to he at or near Port Simpson, with all necessary branches along the route, to be designated.
Then comes clause 3, another significant one :
3rd. That your petitioners, therefore, ask that their application for authority to construct such a line of railway, to be called the ' Grand Trunk Pacific Railway ' shall be granted.
This in a ' private,' ' confidential,' ' personal ' document. Did not these gentlemen w7ho signed this petition, Mr. Hays, railway manager, Mr. Cox, president, I think, of several railway companies in his time, and Mr. Wainwright, an officer of a railway company who, for a quarter of a century, has been doing business before this House in relation to charters, know to whom they were really applying for authority to construct a line of railway. Did these gentlemen imagine, in their innocence, that the right hon. gentleman (Sir Wilfrid Laurler) could authorize the construction of the railway ? Did these gentlemen suppose that the government, with all the power they assume to themselves, could authorize the construction of a railway ? No, Sir ; the only body that could authorize the construction of the railway was this parliament. And. with that clause in their petition, they intended that petition to be not merely for the government but for parliament, the only body that could grant their prayer. I will read a couple of other clauses that would have been of vast importance to gentlemen on this side of the House in their discussions and also, I think, to the people. One of them is as follows :-
that there should be, without any unnecessary delay, a second transcontinental railway reaching from the Atlantic ocean to the Pacific ocean, in order that additional facilities may be provided for the large growing business of the Northwest-
And here are some very significant words, having regard to the discussion of last year and this year :
-which might otherwise find its outlet through American channels.
M by. Sir, that was the subject that was discussed and debated on both sides of this House for weeks, the question whether traffic might be diverted from Canadian to American channels ; and that, Sir, these petitioners, pointed out as a danger that they proposed to guard this country against.
Mr. BARKER.: 8th. That in order to provide for connection with the Atlantic sea-board all the year round and through an all-British territory route, your petitioners will be prepared to enter into an arrangement with the government for an interchange of traffic, or other satisfactory agreement, with the Intercolonial Railway at Montreal, or to consider such other proposal as the government may submit.
Let me read with that an even more significant clause. I call the attention of the House to the fact that this application is on behalf of the Grand Trunk Pacific and not in behalf of the Grand Trunk :
9th. That your petitioners would have the advantage of all the eastern connections, in Ontario and Quebec, of the Grand Trunk Railway, and by this means on the completion of the transcontinental line there would be estab-

lished and opened up a complete system from ocean to ocean.
Now, Mr. Speaker, what does that mean ? Here we have the Grand Trunk Pacific proposing to build a line from Port Simpson to North Bay. They point out to the government that they would have the advantage, as they call it-and it certainly would be an enormous advantage-of the connections through Ontario and Quebec of the existing Grand Trunk Railway, whereby, of course, they would reach Montreal. And, under clause S they tell the government that they were ready to make such arrangements that their traffic arriving at Montreal would there be turned over to the Intercolonial. Why, Sir, to say that that is not an important matter for this House to consider when discussing this transcontinental railway is merely trifling with words. There could be nothing more important, I venture to say, in the whole of the discussion we had last year, than the fact that the Grand Trunk Pacific were prepared to build to North Bay or to a point north of North Bay, and that, as to such traffic as should come through Ontario and arrive at Montreal, instead of its being left open to the great risk-the more than risk, the absolute certainty-of most of it going to Portland, they would enter into an arrangement with the government whereby it should go over the Intercolonial to Canadian seaports. Why, Sir, that was the very thing we were spending weeks in contending for, and if that document had been produced, we should have been able to show that the government had had submitted to them. Yet, we are told that nothing in this document affected the question. What did the Finance Minister (Mr. Fielding) say ?
I want to know was there anything in that correspondence-
That is what he calls this petition.
*-which, if it hatl been brought down would have been of any service to hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House ?
Why, what could have been of more service than the production of these two clauses to show that it was within the power of the government to arrange that every pound of traffic that should go over the Grand Trunk Pacific to Montreal w'ould be secured for Canadian ports ? He says :
Is there anything in it which would have helped them in the discussion?
Well, I think if we had had an opportunity of using it the hon. gentleman would have heard the proposal discussed pretty fully.
This document proposed arrangements for the construction of a railway from the Pacific to North I fay. subsidized by the country, and it proposed the use of the Grand Trunk thence to Montreal, with arrangements to deliver the traffic to the Intercolonial Railway for carriage from Montreal to the Atlantic ports through Canadian territory-and
ill] this he thinks did not concern us. Is there anything in it, he says, which could have helped them in the discussion ?
The right hon. gentleman adds :
This confidential letter was in my own possession. This is the explanation which I have to give to my hon. friends.
And that is the only explanation we get for the non-production of a document of such vast importance.
The hon. the Finance Minister, shortly after reading the document in full to this House, said :
We have not been dealing with any scheme touched l.y that document whatever.
He seems to have given so little heed to the discussion with regard to the danger of the diversion of the traffic from Canadian to American ports, that he could not see that these clauses, 8 and 9, had any bearing upon the subject. Well, I must say that when ministers pass over matters of that kind so lightly, I am not surprised that we have found so many ' blunders ' in this agreement from beginning to end. The hon. gentleman says his reason for not producing it was that it was a confidential document. Well, it is true that at the head of the copy of this document which has been read to the House there certainly is the word ' confidential,' but in such a matter as this, had the government any right to accept from any body of people a document containing such a proposition, to entertain that proposition, and to conceal it from parliament ? What right has a government to deal in such a way with public matters ? If the right hon. gentleman did not feel at liberty to treat that proposition ns a business proposal should be treated by the government, why did he not return it to them and say : I cannot entertain it ? He could have done that, and then he could have said to parliament : I did receive a proposition, but it was marked ' confidential and knowing my duty to parliament and to the country I refused to entertain it, and I returned it. There could be no objection to that. But the hon. gentleman, although he says he did not entertain it, told us in answer to the question I put the other day, that it was entertained, that is to say, that it was submitted to the cabinet. We have not yet seen the answer sent by the government to these gentlemen. I presume when the government receives a written application of that kind they do not give a verbal answer. I presume there was an answer to that application. How is it that that answer has not been brought down ? The hon. gentleman read the document to the House after obtaining Mr. Hays's permission, and yet he does not read the answer. Surely we ought to have everything. And what more. I ask, is there behind all this ? Must we drag every paper out of the hon. gentleman ? Are we to cross-examine him ? Surely that is not

treating the House property. Surely we have a right to complain, and X do complain, and I think my complaint is justified after what has passed.
When the hon. member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) asked for these papers-specified with the utmost particularity-how is it that on that occasion the right hon. gentleman knowiug that this document was in existence, having in his mind-as he must have had in his mind at that moment-this very paper, knowing it was one of the documents that this side of the House wanted to see. Why was it that he did not then ask Mr. Hays's permission to produce it to the House ? All he had to do, even according to his own view of it, was to send a telegram to Mr. Hays, saying: I am asked to produce all the papers relating to this transcontinental railway. Have you any objection to my producing your confidential letter ?-and the permission would have been granted. But it did not suit lion, gentlemen opposite to produce it. It would have furnished an argument to this side of the House, it would have furnished information to the public of the utmost importance, somewhat adverse to the government scheme, but still of great value to this House, which desired to arrive at an intel-' ligent judgment upon this matter. The hon. gentleman did not choose to ask permission to produce that document. It was only when it suited the Finance Minister to use it, when he thought it would give him some little advantage, that it was produced. The moment the Finance Minister wanted to use it, the right hon. gentleman stirred himself up and got permission. He could have got that permission just as readily before, and could have complied with the order of the House to produce every document and, as he himself said, without any equivocation. I point that out to the right hon. gentleman, and I think it requires some explanation from him. I say again, if he could get that consent so readily, when he wanted to use the paper, why did he not get that consent when he knew this House wanted the paper? The House had ordered him to produce the paper, and yet he would not ask permission of the only man apparently, whose consent was required.
Then knowing that the House wanted such a paper as that, knowing that it was an important document and that it was in his possession, why did the hon. gentleman go out of his way to use such particularly emphatic language as to say to the hon. member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) : I tell you without any equivocation at all that you have all the papers ? A most extraordinary statement, surely. I have known hon. ministers to refuse to bring down papers in this House on the ground that the public interest required that they should not be produced ; but I never yet heard a minister deny the possession of papers, and then use the fact that the public Mr. BARKER.
interest was against their production as a reason for denying their existence.
The l'ight hon. gentleman, in as plain terms as if he had said there was no such paper in existence, conveyed that to my hon. friend from Jacques Cartier. He was free to say that which he did not say :	We
have produced everything but confidential papers that we are not at liberty to produce. He did not choose to do that. He said, we have produced everything. Did any one ever hear of a minister of the Crown saying that he had produced every paper relating to a particular subject and when afterwards he was found in possession of a particular document saying : Oh, I did-not produce that because it was against the public interest ? Did the hon. gentleman qualify his language at the time by saying that he produced only the papers that the public were entitled to ? The right hon. gentleman did not pursue that course. He had no trouble at all about plainly saying that he had produced everything. He put himself in the very awkward position that he practically denied having possession of any other documents than those which he produced. The hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) does not seem to have much trouble on that score. He says if you have a confidential document you are not only justified in not producing it but when you are asked a question about it you can ignore it. I think treating the matter in that way would put the hon. gentleman in a very equivocal position. I think it would be a great deal more straightforward on all such occasions for the hon. gentleman to say : I have a document of a confidential character which I am not at liberty to produce. If that had been done we would have known there were documents behind and we would have inquired as to the propriety of the non-production of them on that ground. But we were misled. We were led to suppose that there were no such documents. The hon. Minister of Finance gets over it by saying :	You are entitled to ignore it ;
in effect you are entitled to say you have no such document because it is one that you ought not to produce. I do not think I am over-stating his language. 11 will give it exactly as he uttered it. He says at page 3837 of the unrevised 1 Hansard ' :
-and I dispute the contention of the hon. member for Hamilton (Mr. Barker), that in bringing down a return or in answering a question in this House a minister is hound to take notice of any documents that are confidential. Such documents must he ignored.
That is the way that the hon. Minister of Finance puts it. In other words we can make you our answer as if no such document ever existed. Surely I need not argue that point. It is not arguable that such a thing can be proper. You may refuse to produce a document for special reasons, but to contend that you may ignore

its existence when you are questioned as to it is anything but creditable to the hon. gentleman who makes that proposition. Hon. gentlemen opposite refused to produce this particular document apparently on the ground that they did not grant the request, that they did not act upon the application. Well that is an extraordinary position for a responsible ministry to take before parliament under our constitution. It is that ministers can receive documents as ministers,- consider them and refuse an application in which the country is vitally interested, and that is to be the end of the question. We need not discuss whether the particular terms of this application -were favourable or unfavourable. The ministers simply decide for themselves that they are unsatisfactory and refuse it. How do hon. gentlemen opposite know but that parliament would take a different view of it ? Are we to be shut off on such a question as this by the opinion of. the ministers ? Is this a star chamber government ? Are they to settle questions of such vital moment to the country as this, and are we to have no opportunity of considering the proposition ? This might be a proposition that the government, fairly and honestly considering it, may have thought unwise to accept, but parliament in its wisdom might have thought that ministers were wrong. Surely this parliament had the right to know what tiiat proposition was. Though it might have been the worst possible proposition, we were just as much entitled to know its terms as entitled to see what that proposition was as if it were the very best. If this thing can be done the right hon. gentleman and his ministers can decide the whole affairs of this country and only let parliament know what it suits them to let it know. I repeat, Sir, that under no circumstances whatever can the withholding of that paper be justified. It is obvious to every person that the right hon. gentleman was ready to use that paper -when it suited the party purposes of the government and that he was ready to conceal it so long as it suited the purposes of the government to have it concealed. Hon. gentlemen on his side of the House could know what were the terms of the proposition that we were debarred from knowing. Does the right hon. gentleman think that is consistent conduct ? Surely, if the paper were confidential, it was confidential for all purposes. How could any person with propriety be allowed to know anything of the contents of a confidential paper concealed from this House ? We first of all were entitled to a knowledge of it. 'Will the right hon. gentleman say that nobody knew of it ? He says that he submitted it to his cabinet ? Was it not communicated to anybody else ? Did anybody else know of it ? Does the right hon. gentleman mean to say that he took none of his supporters into his confidence, none of the gentlemen from the Northwest Territoiries or any other gentleman, that this was an absolute secret to everybody until he got Mr. Hays's permission to read it to this House ?
I doubt that the right hon. gentleman will say so.


Wilfrid Laurier: What is that?


Samuel Barker: I doubt very much that the right hon. gentleman will say that no person on his side of the House, other than his colleagues, was aware of the contents of that paper until it was read in this House ? Now, that is all I have to say.
I move this resolution with the distinct intimation to hon. gentlemen opposite that it includes every document of every character whatever which relates to this subject matter.


Wilfrid Laurier: I have no objection whatever to the passage of the resolution, nor would I have objection to make to the speech which the hon. gentleman (Mr. Barker) delivered, were it not for certain expressions, which if they are to be taken seriously, were meant to be offensive. I do not think that I should go that far with the hon. gentleman, for perhaps he did not measure as he might have done, the language made use of by him. Parliament is entitled to all the information in the possession of the government with respect to public matters, but my hon. friend who is a business man will I think agree, that there is a way and a way of doing business. Not only with regard to public business, but even in private intercourse between man and man, it is the privilege of one man to approach another confidentially, to put his proposition either verbally or in writing, and if in writing it is his privilege to ask that it be treated as confidential. I do not think that proposition will be gainsaid by anybody. If it be a part of the amenities of civilized life : in fact, if it be a condition without which civilized intercourse cannot exist, that there should be respect for the confidence of another, then the hon. gentleman will have to revise somewhat the language which he used. The hon. gentleman, in speaking of the document as he called it can, as I am prepared to call it, which was marked 'confidential ' by the persons who sent it to me as head of the government, said :	Had the
government the right to receive such a document, to entertain it. and to keep it for themselves ? I say no. If the government had received, and if they had entertained such a paper, even though it be marked confidential, they could not have kept it for themselves. I assert that most distinctly. But, when that government receives a paper which is. marked * confidential,' and when they do not entertain the proposition therein contained, then I think the government would be quite justified in doing even what the hon. gentleman (Mr. Barker) suggested,

that is, to return the document to those from whom it came. I might have returned the document and perhaps I should have returned it, but that idea did not occur to my mind. At any rate if we had returned the document to its authors, then, according to the hon. gentleman, we would not only have been within our rights but within our duty. However, not having entertained the prayer of that document, and not having returned it to the parties who sent it to me, I believe X was quite justified in not filing it upon record in the department. The prayer of the petition was ignored and there was nothing of interest to the public in it after that. At all events I so treated it. Let me ask now : what rule shall be laid down by parliament in a matter of this kind ? Shall the rule be that when a motion is passed by parliament for papers, then, every paper and every letter which may have been sent to a minister, though marked ' confidential ' shall be given to the public ? Does the hon. gentleman pretend that parliament is entitled to every letter which a minister may receive, whether it is marked ' confidential ' or not ? I do not think the hon. gentleman will go that far. I think he will acknowledge that there must be a certain limit. I repeat that in my judgment, if a paper is marked confidential, and if the prayer of that document is ignored, then under such circumstances it remains a purely private matter, although of course if the proposition in the document be accepted and its prayer granted, then even though marked ' confidential ' it becomes a public document. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Barker) made an insinuation which I want to meet here and now. He said that he doubted if this paper had not been submitted to certain supporters of the government. Well, I do not know what he means by that, although I would think the remark rather offensive, but I have to say to the hon. gentleman as I said the other day : that this document has not been shown by me to anybody outside the cabinet ; that document never went out of my hands and never was shown to anybody outside the members of the government.


Mr. B. L. BORDEN.: Nor its contents disclosed to anybody outside the government V


Wilfrid Laurier: Its contents-I am not aware that I ever disclosed them. I will not say that the proposition gor the extension of a railway across the continent may not have been discussed by me with some parties, but so far as my recollection goes at this moment. I do not think that I ever spoke to any person in the world, outside of my colleagues in the government, of the proposition which had been made and which was sent to me in the month of November in the year 1902. I may say, though it is of no consequence to the House, that being in poor health at that time I left for the south in the month of November and did Sir WILFRID LAUR1BR.
not come back until the middle of January, when the negotiations were-I will not say renewed because there had not been any negotiations-but when the new communication was made by the Grand Trunk Pacific, of which the House is aware.
Now, Sir. am I to understand that my hon. friend and his colleagues on the other side, are prepared to contend that when a proposition of any kind is made confidentially to the government, and is not entertained by the government, it is, under such circumstances, a communication which must be made public ? If that be the contention of the hon. gentlemen opposite, I must say that I do not agree with it. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Barker) must not expect that the government could do. must do, or would do what he himself would not do in his own private business. If the hon. gentleman is approached by a party who makes a confidential proposition to him and ask him to treat it as confidential, I have too much respect for his honour to believe that he would divulge that communication and betray that confidence, I am rather inclined to believe that the hon. gentleman would treat it as a sacred secret belonging to the party who approached him. Is it to be expected, in the multitude of business which must engage the attention of the government ; in the multitude of applications which must come daily before the government, there are none which may be asked to be treated confidentially by the party who makes them, but that they must all go into the archives of the government ? Is it to be expected that none of these communications are to be included in the private correspondence of a minister ? I treated this communication as confidential.
I did not think that it was a public document ; I believe that it was not a public document when its prayer was not acceded to by the government. But, when hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House stated in the course of this debate, that the Grand Trunk Company first approached the government and offered to build a railway from North Bay to the Pacific ocean for the ordinary subsidy, and when these gentlemen repeated it again, and again, and again, apparently convincing themselves that it was a fact, then, Sir, I thought it was time to ask the parties who made the proposition if they would agree to have the seal of secrecy removed so that the truth as to their proposition might be laid before the House.


Mr.   CLARICE@: If that document' was not produced in deference to the order of the House because it was considered confidential, why was it not considered confidential until the end of the debate ?


Wilfrid Laurier: It was considered a confidential document all through; but before making use of it I asked Mr. Hays if he would remove the seal of secrecy and give me permission to use it.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Why was that not asked before 1


Wilfrid Laurier: Because it was not the proposition before the House, but when nay hon. friend and other hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House stated that the Grand Trunk Pacific Company were prepared to build a line from North Bay to the Pacific ocean for the ordinary subsidies, a statement which was absolutely contrary to the facts, then we asked that the facts should be known and laid hefore the public. We think the House is entitled to all information which is in the hands of the government. I have no objection to this motion passing, and I shall take good care to have all the corners swept and all the files searched, and to have the clerks use all the brooms they can use to sweep up all the information we can obtain for the hon. gentleman. But does he mean to say that thisi should include all the private correspondence that may be sent to me or to my colleagues ? Is the proposition to be laid down that private letters, even documents which are marked private, and before the seal of secrecy is removed from them, are to form part of the information to which the House is entitled ? I am not prepared to say so. The hon. gentlemen made use of an expression to which I think I have a right to take exception. He said that I had concealed from the House information to which the House was entitled. I do not agree with him, and I think I have a right to take exception to that expression. I may have been right or I may have been wrong in my judgment. Not only in this instance, but in all instances since I have been at the head of the government, I have regarded it as my duty, whenever a confidential document has been placed in my hands, to keep it confidential until such time as the seal of secrecy has been removed from it. That is the position I take to-day. On this point, let me quote from Todd's Parliamentary Government, as follows :
Considerations of public policy, and a due regard to the interests of the state, occasionally demand, however, that information sought for by members of the legislature should be withheld, at the discretion and upon the general responsibility of ministers. This principle is systematically recognized in all parliamentary transactions; were it otherwise' it would be impossible to carry on the government with safety and honour. Whenever it is declared, by the responsible servants of the Crown, that any information sought for in parliament could not be supplied without inconvenience to the public service, or for other sufficient reasons, the House refrains from insisting upon its production.
This authority, in my opinion, applies to the present case. Ministers receive letters every day which are confidential, though on public matters ; others are private ; others are public without any qualification. They
all go on record. Confidential communications, though relating to the public service, do not go on record at once, though they may later on. There may be circumstances in which ministers of the Crown must take the responsibility of saying whether or not documents which are of a public character should or should not be brought down to the House. They have a discretion in that respect; but I did not claim any such discretion in this case. The hon. gentleman commented, I will not say offensively, but in a manner to suggest something wrong, when he stated that I had not given a candid answer to my hon. friend from Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) when last year I told him without any equivocation that all the information had been brought down. I repeat now what I said then. Everything that was on the public files had been brought down ; nothing had been reserved at all. But the hon. gentleman insinuated that I had been equivocating because at that time I had in my possession a confidential document. There was no equivocation on my part at all, because I take the ground that all documents which are confidential, which are not on the files and archives of the government, are in the sole custody of the minister who has received them, and cannot be brought down. Then, Todd goes on to say :
In 1869, ministers agreed to an order for certain papers concerning Fenianism, but finding on close inspection that ' their publication could he attended with no public advantage,' and that ' they contained matter which it is contrary to our public duty as ministers to be parties to laying before the House,' they determined to ask the House to rescind the order, which was done on a division.
On that occasion papers had been ordered, hut the ministers found that it would not be to the public advantage to bring down all the papers which were on file, and they asked the House to rescind the order. Todd goes on further to say ;
And If the government object to produce any documents, on the ground that they are of a private and confidential description, it is not usual to insist upon their being furnished, except under peculiar and imperative circumstances.
Mr. SniuULE. May I ask the right hon. gentleman if it is not the custom, when parliament is pressing for papers which are supposed to be in the possession of the government, and which have not been presented to parliament, for the government to answer that all documents have been brought down except such as are of a confidential nature. That is the usual answer.


Wilfrid Laurier: I beg the hon. gentleman's pardon-that is not the usual answer. I do not believe that confidential papers are ever intended to be brought down to parliament until they cease to have a confidential character, and become public.

For instance, if we had entertained this very proposition from Messrs. Cox. Hays and Wainwright, that moment it would have been placed among the archives of the government, and might be brought down. But as it was not entertained, it was of a private character.


Edward Frederick Clarke: On what date did this document lose its confidential character ?


Wilfrid Laurier: It never lost it until Mr. Hays gave permission to publish it. Therefore, I have this to say to my hon. friend, that in this matter I think I have acted not only in perfect good faith but according to parliamentary rules and practices. I have only to say in conclusion, that I do not object to the motion.


Robert Laird Borden: The right lion, gentleman has giveu us some rather singular and novel ideas regarding the circumstances under which documents may be withheld by the government. In the first place, before dealing with the main question, let me point out that the Minister C Finance introduced this document on the 26th of May in answer to some observations made by my hon. friend from Lanark on the 6th of April. In other words, a period of more than seven weeks elapsed during which he allowed the debate to go on without producing this document, and it was only within three for four hours, of the division, and when consequently that document could not be effectively commented on or used in the debate, that the Minister of Finance, with the kind permission of Mr. Hays, decided to bring it down. And my right hon. friend considers that a fair and decent treatment of parliament. I do not think that it requires anything more than a single statement of the facts to give the most absolute and utter condemnation of any such proceeding.
My right hon. friend declares that it is the privilege of any person in this country to approach the government in confidence and that that confidence ought to be respected. That is subject, it seems to me, to some qualifications. I have never heard that it was the privilege of any corporation or any group of promoters to approach the government in confidence for the purpose of tapping the treasury and to have that confidence respected. My right hon. friend's conclusion, if carried to its legitimate result, would lead to some singular consequences. Suppose a bank president was informed by a burglar in confidence that he proposed to break into the bauk that evening, according to my right hon. friend's reasoning, the bank president would be bound to respect the confidence of the burglar. Suppose a railway company were to make a confidential communication to the Board of Railway Commissioners in which it pointed out that its rates exceeded those authorized bv the commission, but submitted that as'the communi-Sir WILFRID LAURIER.
cation was made in confidence, the Board of Railway Commissioners should take no action ; in such a case, according to my right bon. friend, the Railway Commissioners would have their hands tied until the information was disclosed to them in some other way. And suppose the Grand Trunk Railway should make a confidential communication to this government, pointing out that inasmuch as they are not bound by the terms of the contract, they propose to use all their efforts to gather up traffic in the Northwest, bring it by the Grand Trunk Pacific to Quebec, and thence carry it to Portland in the winter months, my right hon. friend would consider himself warranted in treating that as a confidential communication and in not informing the House or the country. I submit that when a proposal is made by a company to build a great public undertaking, when public aid is asked in a very generous measure, and when that proposal is carried out in part, as this was, the government are not in a position to treat it as confidential. I do not think that they would be in a position to treat it as confidential under any circumstances. I think that they were bound to adopt one of two courses. They should either have returned that document to Mr. Hays and said to him: This is a document asking public aid for a public undertaking and the government will not receive confidential communications on a subject of that kind. Or they should have informed Mr. Hays that his proposal would l ot be considered for one moment until he withdrew the term confidential and left the government at perfect liberty to submit it to parliament.


Mr. MCCARTHY.: Suppose the document had been returned by the First Minister to Mr. Hays, and suppose that afterwards the First Minister should have said to Mr. Hays: You made a communication to me in confidence which I returned to you, but I would like you to let me use it iu order to refute certain allegations which have been made against the government, would not the right hon. gentleman have been warranted in then obtaining the document again and making it public ?


Robert Laird Borden: My hon. friend has evidently not thought much on the subject or he would not make this interruption.
Mr. McCarthy. That is not an answer.


Robert Laird Borden: I will give my hon. friend an answer. If that document had been returned to the Grand Trunk Railway and the negotiations were off, that would then be an end of the matter. But if the negotiations were resumed, they would be resumed on certain documents presented and these documents ought to be submitted to parliament when the measure is discussed. My hon. friend smiles, but there is not an hon. member other than himself who does

not understand and appreciate the point. My right hon. friend says further that this document was properly withheld from parliament because the proposal was not entertained. Well, let us see whether or not the proposal was entertained in whole or in part, and I shall not offer any apology for reading at this stage the whole of this interesting document in order that we may see what the proposal was and whether or not it did form the basis of that measure which has so recently been discussed in this House :
Confidential.
' Montreal, Que., Nov. 3rd, 1902.
To the Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier, G.C.M.G., P.C., Premier of the Dominion of Can., Ottawa, Ont.
Sir,-Your petitioners desire to memorialize your government in regard to the construction of a first-class line of railway from the northern terminus of the Grand Trunk Railway, at, or near, North Bay, Ont., through to the Pacific coast, for the reasons and upon the conditions herein set forth.
Let me point out to the right hon. gentleman who says that this proposal has not been entertained, that this is part of the very railway project which we have been discussing during the past two sessions, and that the gentlemen who signed this communication are the promoters of the very company, the charter for which has. been passed through this House. Therefore, let me say that this proposal, far from not being entertained, has been entertained to that extent, although something else has been added to it. Then the claimants proceed.
1st. That it is considered very desirable and in the public interests that there should be, without any unnecessary delay, a second transcontinental railway reaching from the Atlantic ocean to the Pacific ocean, in order that additional facilities may be provided for the large growing business in the North-west, which might otherwise find its outlet through American channels.
The same idea and almost the very words in which the right hon. gentleman last year introduced the very measure which we have been discussing in parliament during the past and present sessions. Yet the right hon. gentleman says that no portion of this proposal has been at any time entertained. There is the very proposal he has been putting through parliament and there is the very reason offered in support of It which he has urged upon the House. Yet he says tliis document was justly withheld from parliament for a year and a half because it was not entertained in any sense or in any part. The document proceeds as follows :
2nd. That your petitioners propose, as soon as authorized by your government, to undertake the construction of such a line from North Bay, Ontario, or some other point north thereof, to be defined, to the Pacific coast, the terminus to be at or near Port Simpson, with all
necessary branches along the route, to be designated.
So far as the western division is concen-ed, with the exception of the line from North Bay to Winnipeg, this is exactly the proposition, with the same terminus, which was brought down by the government and discussed in parliament during last session and this. Yet the right hon. gentleman ventures to say, in the face of that, though the document has been in possession of the government during all this time, that this proposal did not relate in any way to the project we have been considering in parliament for so long a period. The document proceeds :
1*hat your petitioners, therefore, ask that their application for (authority to construct such line of railway to be called ' Grand Trunk Pacific Railway ' shall he granted.
Well, now, my right hon. friend is in rather a curious position as to that. He says this is a confidential document Then, what warrant had he to disclose it to his colleagues ? If be had warrant to disclose it to his colleagues, he certainly had warrant under paragraph 3 to disclose it to parliament, for the simple and sufficient reason that parliament was the only body that could give the power asked for in this paragraph :
4th. That your petitioners will he prepared, immediately an agreement is entered into by the government, and the concessions hereinafter mentioned are sanctioned by an Order in Council, to place p corps of engineers in the field, both at the eastern and western ends and at other points on the projected line.
I would like to know, if it was not under the proposal contained in that fourth paragraph, then, how was it, that engineers were put upon certain portions of that proposed line before the Bill of last session became law on the 24th of October ? We find the very scheme carried out that is set forth in that fourth paragraph ? They did not wait for the passing of the Bill to place the surveyors and engineers on the proposed line. They did as they had proposed to the government. The document proceeds :
5th. That the routes to be selected shall be submitted to and approved by the government, after proper surveys have been made.
Again we have the very scheme that has been discussed and considered in parliament during these last two sessions :
6th. That as soon as the plans and routes are approved, work shall be commenced and the road shall he completed and In operation within a period of five years from the time the Act is in force.
The very terms of the contract which was brought down by the government last year. And when my right hon. friend tells us that this document would have been of no assistance to parliament in considering

this measure, ask him whether or not the voluntary proposal of these very gentlemen themselves would have been of assistance to parliament when we were considering, during this very session, the time which should be allowed to this company for building the line in the west ? Five years was their own offer. And it was the term fixed by the original contract as brought down by the government. Yet, in considering the extension to eight years agreed to by the government, after the contract as originally made had been ratified by parliament, my right hon. friend thinks we would not have been assisted in the discussion in parliament by knowing that five years was the very term proposed by the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company itself. The document proceeds :
7th. That all the work shall be subject to the inspection and approval of the chief engineer of the government.
Again we have exactly the terms of this contract as brought down by the government last year. And, in the face of this paragraph my right hon. friend says that this proposal has no relation to the contract brought down by the government. The next paragraph is as follows :
8th. That in order to provide for connection with the Atlantic sea-board all the year round and through an all-British territory route, your petitioners will be prepared to enter into an arrangement with the government for an interchange of traffic, or other satisfactory agreement, with the Intercolonial Railway at Montreal, or to consider such other proposal as the government may submit.
It was In respect of that eighth paragraph that the government made the principal change in the proposal of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company. Instead of doing what is here proposed the government build, and lease to the Grand Trunk Pacific, the line from North Bay to Quebec. But, would it not have been well that parliament, when discussing the advisability of building that line, should have had before it, as it was entitled to have, this proposition of the Grand Trunk Pacific ? Surely my right hon. friend will see that that eighth paragraph is itself an alternative proposition which ought, in all fairness-and in all honour, I will say-to have been submitted to parliament before this went through. The document proceeds :
Oth. That your petitioners would have the advantage of all the eastern connections, in Ontario and Quebec, of the Grand Trunk Railway, and by this means on the completion of the transcontinental line there would be established and opened up a complete system from ocean to ocean.
That is not a proposal, but only an argument. It is, however, an argument which the right hon. gentleman and members of his government and speakers on that side Mr R. L. BORDEN.
made the most of in forcing this measure through. The petition then proceeds :
10th. That the conditions referred to in clause 4, upon which your petitioners would undertake the carrying out of the proposed work, may be set forth as follows :-[DOT]
(a.) That the Dominion government -will grant a cash subsidy to your petitioners of $6,400 per mile of railway, and in addition 5,000 acres of land per mile.
' lb.) That the payment for the carriage of the mails shall be calculated on the same basis as provided for under the contract made with the Canadian Pacific Railway Company.
(c.) That rails and materials of every kind used in the construction of the railway-if dutiable-shall he admitted free, if such material cannot be obtained in Canada upon equally favourable terms.
(d.) That the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway and all stations and station grounds, work shops, buildings, yards and other property, rolling stock and appurtenances required and used for the 'construction and working thereof, and the capital stock of the company, shall be for ever free from taxation by the Dominion or by any province hereafter to be established or by any municipal corporation therein ; and the lands of the company in the Northwest Territories (until they are either sold or occupied) shall also be free from such taxation, for twenty years after the grant thereof from the Crown.
Your petitioners ask that your government will give the prayer of this petition their early and most earnest consideration.
And your petitioners will ever pray.
On behalf of the petitioners,



GEO. A. COX, CHAS. M. HAYS, WM. WAINWRIGHT.

[Stage Direction]
Now, my right lion. friend says that the return ordered by this motion of my hon. friend from Hamilton (Mr. Barker) will include everything in possession of the government. I believe it should include proposals, if there are any such proposals, from any other promoters, or any other body of men desirous of undertaking the contract for the building of this railroad. I do not know whether there were any such proposals : I have no information whether any such proposals have been made ; but I think that if there are any, whether marked confidential or not, the government ought to bring them down and place them before parliament. But perhaps I should qualify that by saying, in the first place, that the government should not x'eceive such proposals as confidential. If they have received any in that way they should ask the consent of the persons who made the proposals to bring them down. And, if these persons do not consent to the bringing down of these documents, I have only to recite the authority of my right hon. friend himself as to the course which should he followed. He told us last year in speaking on the Alaskan Boundary question, that he would ask the authority of the British government to bring down a series of con-

Sciential communications, but, if the consent of the imperial government was not obtained, that he would bring them down without such consent. And, I suppose that in a matter involving the public funds of this country, a matter which the government should not have allowed to be made confidential in the first instance, my right bon. friend might very fairly follow the precedent established by himself and take the course which he said he would take in bringing down such documents whe-their consent was obtained or not.
My right hon. friend referred to the familiar doctrine in Todd's Parliamentary Practice-that there are certain confidential communications as to which parliament ic not entitled, at the moment at least, and may never be entitled, to have information. For example, negotiations with a foreign government ; matters affecting the defence of the country ; information afforded to officers of the government of breach of the Customs Law matters of that kind are kept from parliament in the public interest for the reason that, if parliament could claim at any moment to be seized of any information of that kind it would be impossible to carry on the government of the country.
But such considerations do not apply to the application of a body of promoter's to the government of this country for public aid to a public undertaking. They have no relevancy to such a subject. A demand for assistance from the treasury of this country cannot be confidential. If this application was made to the government to assist the Grand Trunk Pacific out of the private moneys of the members of the government that is one thing ; but that is not the application as I understand it. The application is made for assistance to this undertaking out of the public moneys ol the people of this country and the people of this country are entitled to know all applications of that kind and the government should not receive such communications as confidential.
Now my right hon. friend ought to be reminded of another circumstance in connection with this matter, and it is this : We did not understand some of the allusions which were made to this document last year. We have had the repeated declarations of this government-which I will not review again as I have already reviewed them-we have had the repeated declarations of this government during the past session and during the present session, that everything relating to this question was before the House. We made these demands upon the government in consequence of certain utterances of two ministers of the Crown last year. One of those utterances was made by Mr. Blair, not at that time a minister of the Crown, because before making this speech in parliament he had resigned his position as Minister of Railways and Canals. But in the * Hansard ' of 1903. at page 8416, Mr. Blair felt himself at liberty to make the statement which I will now read to the House from his speech:
The thing was never mooted before, and the government took no action, until the Grand Trunk Railway Company conceived that it would be in their own interest to have the railway project liberally aided by the parliament of Canada, which they desired to promote. That is the secret of the whole business, that is where it originated.
I call my right hon. friend's attention to the statement of his ex-Minister of Railways and Canals that a proposal to the government was the origin of the project which the government brought down ; and when he says that this document was not germane to the discussion which we have had. he is in direct conflict with that statement of his ex-minister, who says : That proposal is the secret of the whole business; that is where it originated. There cannot be any doubt of the correctness of Mr. Blair's statement, because I have pointed out the striking similarity between the project for the construction of the western division and the proposal made by the Grand Trunk Pacific to the government. The two things speak for themselves. I need not emphasize the fact, I need not elaborate it. The line from North Bay to Moncton was an addition made by the government and except for that addition the original proposal remained and was carried out by the government almost exactly as it was proposed to the government by the Grand Trunk Pacific Company, with the exception of course of the aid to the railway which was given in another form and was of a modified character. But Mr. Blair proceeds as follows in the quotation that I am reading :
All the other considerations fell upon unheeding ears. All these dangers never struck our minds, never seemed to have entered into our calculations; it never occurred to us that we were under such imminent peril; it never was suggested by any one that the great future of Canada, the very life of Canada, was at stake, until the Grand Trunk Railway Company made a call and laid their proposition before my hon. friends and colleagues of the government.
That is Mr. Blair's statement jof the position. But we have another statement from a gentleman who is still a member of the government, the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Sifton) who, in the 1 Hansard ' of 1903, page 8664, is reported as follows :
We had in the beginning one proposition, and to that proposition there was an alternative. The suggestion was made that we should assist the construction of a line from the end of the North Bay branch of the Grand Trunk Railway northward and around to the city of Winnipeg, and further westward to Port William.
What was the Minister of the Interior speaking of, if not this proposal which
[Stage Direction]
was read to the House on the 26th of May, and what is the alternative proposal which is referred to by the Minister 'of the Interior in that quotation ? He speaks not only of this proposition, but of some alternative proposition that has not yet been laid before the House. Will the right hon. gentleman bring down that alternative proposition, or does he venture to say that no such alternative proposal was ever made? Why is it, when a minister of the Crown has made this reference to a public document, that that document was withheld-I was going to use the -word concealed-from this parliament ? My right hon. friend has referred to auhorities. Let me refer him to the authority of Bourinot's Parliamentary Procedure, edited by the learend Clerk of this House, at page 36G, where this principle is laid down-and let me say that this principle relates eveu to documents which are truly confidential. The principle is this :
If a minister cites any such document in the House, it becomes a public paper and should be produced.
Well, did not my hon. friend the Minister of the Interior in effect cite that document when he referred to that proposal, and did not the ex-minister of the Crown cite that document and refer to it still more distinctly ? Let me point out further, on an authority which I think will be regarded by every hon. gentleman in this House, the practice of the English pallia-* ment, under which such a reference, made even by an ex-minister of the Crown, renders it necessary, as I understand the practice, that the document should be laid before the House. In the case of the Cagliari, which is referred to in volume 149 of the English ' Hansard,' at pages 177 and 178, a certain matter had been under consideration of a previous government, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in dealing with the question, pointed out that the government of which he was a member had taken it for granted that their predecessors had arrived at a certain conclusion which rendered action on the part of the incoming government absolutely unnecessary. Then speaking further on the question he said this :
But when the discussion took place on Friday night, the noble Lord, the member for Tiverton (Viscount Palmerston) rose and stated, in a manner most unexpected by us, that the late government were considering again the case of the Cagliari previous to their retirement from office.
Then he goes on to say that an examination of the documents does not seem to him to justify that. But he continues as follows :
We shall act without fear or favour, whether we may deem it our duty to recognize the jurisdiction of a sovereign, or to vindicate the rights of our fellow subjects. We have given direc-Mr. R. L. BORDEN.
tions that all the papers connected, with the management of the Cagliari case by our predecessors should be prepared and laid with all reasonable despatch before parliament. They are more voluminous than the House perhaps imagines; but no unnecessary delay will take place in their production.
I may say that is one of the authorities Sir John Bourinot cited by for the principle that when a document is cited in this House by a minister of the Crown it becomes at once a public paper and should be produced, j's I have already said, he is dealing there, not with documents of this character, which cannot be really confidential, but he is dealing with documents which are truly and in the accepted sense confidential documents, and which otherwise ought not to be produced to parliament.
But, let me refer my right hon. friend to another aspect of this question upon which I certainly think that some explanation is needed. My hon. friend from Hamilton (Mr. Barker) on the 30th of May, put this question to the government:
Mr. BARKER asked;
To what persons, on what dates, and under what circumstances, was the application of George A. Cox, Charles M. Hayes, and William Wainwright, read to the House by the Honourable the Finance Minister, on the morning of the 27th May, 1904, communicated wholly or in part previous to the same being so read to the House?
Wilfrid Laurier: The application of Messrs. Cox, Hays and Wainwright, which was read on May 27, by the Minister of Finance, was communicated to the cabinet and to nobody else. As to the date, it is impossible to say at what date, but it was shortly after it had been received.
Now, some rather striking utterances were made by a certain very prominent gentleman on the other side of the House during the last session, which I think call for some explanation in connection with that statement of the right hon. gentleman. I refer to the utterances, among others, of the hon. member for North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton), whose absence we all regret from the House during the present session. That hon. gentleman took a very important part in the debate. He was put up by the government to reply to the Hon. Mr. Blair. ex-Minister of Railways and Canals, on the occasion when that gentleman made a most noteworthy speech in this House, in which he condemned unsparingly the policy of his colleagues in committing themselves and the country to this project. Therefore, the words of the hon. member for North Norfolk bore a certain semi-official import. He was referred to by the right hon. gentleman in terms of the highest commendation as the greatest authority on transportation in Canada. or in language to that effect. This hon. gentleman, speaking for the government in that regard, used this language, which is to be found at page 8493 of ' Hansard) of 1903 :

The government proceeded to consider several propositions. They considered a proposition of building a government road, considered it carefully, as I am well aware, and rejected that proposition.
They considered several propositions ! We know what the proposition to build a government road means, and we know the proposition which the government eventually brought down to this House. But what are the other propositions, one of which has been referred to, not only by the hon. member for North Norfolk, but by the hon. Minister of the Interior (Mr. Sifton) himself ? But the hon. member for North Norfolk made a further reference to this matter, which is to be found in ' Hansard ' of 1903, page 8495 :
We were at the parting of the ways. We had, on the one hand, the policy recommended of building a government road. On the other hand, we had the policy recommended of assisting the construction of a road in the old fashioned way of granting subsidies.
Now, what was that ' policy recommended of building a government road? ' Was that the policy propounded by Mr. Blair in the memorandum, about the publication of which so much has been said in this House ? Can it mean anything else ? Does it mean anything else ? Is it possible that the proposition of Mr. Blair, said to have been kept secret, was disclosed to Mr. Charlton last year ? Can there be any denial of that ? Will my right hon. friend deny it now ?


Wilfrid Laurier: Yes, most decidedly.


Robert Laird Borden: Well, I would like to ask my right hon. friend how the hon. member for North Norfolk became aware of the policy of building a government road, to which he refers in making these remarks?


Sir   M ILFRID LAURIER@: I have only to say that I cannot answer for what my hon friend from North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton) said, but when the hon. gentleman (Mr. R, L. Borden) asks me if my hon. friend from North Norfolk had any communication of the memorandum of Mr. Blair, I submit most emphatically .that he never had.


Robert Laird Borden: I accept without hesitation the word of my right hon. friend.
T accept it in the usual sense, not in the parliamentary sense, but I still think that my right hon. friend will not deny that I am entitled to entertain a strong opinion as to that most extraordinary statement made by the hon. member for North Norfolk. If no member of the cabinet disclosed that proposed policy to him, how could it possibly happen that he became so well aware of the policy which had been before the government ? How was it possible for him to be aware of what the government was considering ? Let me read his language again :	.
The government proceeded to consider several propositions.
How does he know that the government proceeded to consider several propositions ? Was he a member of the Privy Council ? I am not aware that the hon. gentleman has been ever elevated to that rank, or that he has participated in the deliberations of the government. He says :
They considered a proposition of building a government road, considered it carefully, as I am well aware, and rejected that proposition.
How did the hon. member for North Norfolk become well aware of what the government had considered carefully ? The government would not consider anything carefully unless they considered it in Council, I suppose. That hon. gentleman, I am bound to assume from the statement of my right hon. friend, had no information as to what was going on at the Privy Council. Are we to assume that he was listening at the door ? What are we to assume as to the source of his information ? My right hon. friend sat in the House and listened to that statement and made no comment upon it. Did he regard it as singular that the hon. member \for Nofbtli Norfolk should have made that statement as to the private and secret deliberations of the government in Council ? Did he go to him afterwards and ask the source of his information ? Was there any indignation on that occasion exhibited by my right hon. friend or the members of his government ? I do not recollect that there was any scene in the House when the hon. gentleman did make that statement.
We had, on the one hand, the policy recommended of building a government road.
The policy recommended ! Recommended by whom ? Could it be possible that that hon. gentleman was talking of the recommendation of the Minister of Railways and Canals, which was submitted to Council ? One would most certainly interpret his language in that way. if we had not the assurance of my right hon. friend that no such communication was made to the hon. member for North Norfolk.
But a still more startling statement is made in regard to this matter by the same hon. gentleman, and I would like my right hon. friend to take clause 10 of the proposals of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company and read it while I am reading what the hon. member for North Norfolk said in regard to the proposals which had been submitted to the government. In order to relieve my right hon. friend from the necessity of doing that, perhaps I had better read clause 10 again, Clause 10 of the proposal is as follows :
10th. That the conditions referred to in clause 4, upon which your petitioners would undertake the carrying out of the proposed work, may be set forth as follows:



(a.) That the Dominion government will grant a cash subsidy to your petitioners of $6,-100 per mile of railway, and in addition 5,000 acres of land per mile.
That is the proposal of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company, the proposal of that company made on the 3rd of November, 1902, and here is the language of the hon. member for North Norfolk as reported in ' Hansard ' of the past session at page 8493 :
The government proceeded next to consider a proposition for the construction of the road in the old fashioned way, that of granting subsidies. There was a proposition to build a road from North Bay to the west, which involved a land grant of 5,000 acres per mile and a money grant of $6,400 per mile.
Of course I am bound to assume that this is absolutely a coincidence, but is it not a most startling coincidence ? I cannot quite understand it. The hon. member (Mr. Chariton) proceeded as follows
Well, the government have never adopted the system of making land grants to railways, and wisely concluded that this was not a good time to begin it, so that proposition was dropped. Then a compromise proposition was accepted, 'viz., the construction of a road over which the government should have supervision.
This seems to me hardly to need comment. I must confess that when the member for North Norfolk arose in this House and stated the exact terms of a confidential communication to the government, 1 would have expected that my right hon. friend would have exhibited some of tbe indignation we have witnessed on other occasions, and that he would have demanded from the member for North Norfolk how it was, that he became possessed of this confidential document. But on the contrary, the Prime Minister rose in his place and spoke in the most flattering terms of the hon. member (Mr. Charlton), describing him as the greatest authority on transportation in Canada. I do not know whether or not he is the greatest authority on transportation in Canada, hut he certainly is entitled to credit for his extraordinary ability in correctly stating the contents of this confidential document which had never been communicated to him. We know' that that document was never shown to him ; we know that its terms were never communicated to him by any member of the government, because we have tbe word of the Prime Minister that it never was com-'municated to the member for North Norfolk or to anybody else ; yet the extraordinary spectacle is afforded to parliament of the hon. member (Mr. Charlton), repeating word for word and line for line with literal and exact accuracy, the exact proposal made for aid by the Grand Trunk Pacific Company to this government. It would appear that we should have some further explanation from the government on this subject.
But that is not all; there is more to come. By the lamented death of Mr. McCreary, Mr. R. L. BORDEN.
we are deprived of certain information which might have thrown light upon this subject. The late Mr. McCreary also seemed to have had a very shrewd and accurate itiea ou this subject, because speaking in this House on the 29th of April, 1904, he said :
The hon. gentleman (Mr. Barker) is quite mistaken in some ot his premises, and I think in future discussions he should correct them. He has no license to say that the Grand Trunk has not demanded as much for the construction of the line from North Bay to Winnipeg as they are: now demanding for the construction of the line through the mountains. Had the government acceded to the wishes of the Grand Trunk Railway Vwe would have had a very much worse bargain than we have, the present arrangement secures a shorter railway, better built, and /with better gradients.


Edward Frederick Clarke: The position of the hon. gentleman now seems to he simply that he is trying to excuse the government and to apologize for the enormous subsidies they are giving the Grand Trunk, by making the assertion, without any justification whatever, that the Grand Trunk would not have proceeded to carry out their original intention unless this government built the road from North Bay to Winnipeg and guaranteed three-quarters of the sum required to build the prairie section and the mountain section. "What justification has the hon. gentleman for saying this ?


Mr. McCREARY.: I have the justification that they asked that1 very assistance.


Edward Frederick Clarke: From whom ? Unfortunately the facts are against the hon. gentleman.


William Forsythe McCreary: Not at all.
We therefore see that Mr. McCreary had a very good idea of the contents of this document which has been at last submitted to this House. Further than that, if we can judge from his remarks, he seems to have had an inkling that some member of tbe government would during tbe closing hours of the debate, when it was impossible to discuss it, spring this document upon the House. It seems to me that some further light is required as to the extraordinary amount of information possessed by Mr. Charlton and by the late Mr. McCreary as to the contents of this confidential document. By what means did these hon. gentlemen obtain that information; they were private members of the House, and were entitled to no more information on this subject than any other hon. gentleman ; by what means were these hon. gentlemen able to use in debate, information which never was laid before this House until it was read recently by the Minister of Finance.


Right Hon.   S@: I have only one word to say. I have no time to read the extracts which the hon. gentleman lias just given to the House, but I may say that there are more ways than one of getting information. I say to the hon. gentleman again, that the document which was placed in my hands by Mr. Hays, in November, 1902, never was

shown to anybody outside of the cabinet. If anybody got knowledge of it, the means by which he got knowledge of it, is one of those secrets as to which I have no information to give ; but we know from past experience that such a thing sometimes happens.


Mr. T. S. SPROULE (East Grey).: The usual course is that when a motion is made by parliament for papers, the minister states that such papers will be brought down as is not confidential. When that statement is made by a minister of the Crown, parliament usually accepts it as sufficient and refrains from prosecuting the inquiry further. That was not done in the present instance by the government. If I understood the Prime Minister correctly, he contends that when a minister of the Crown states that he brought down all information, the statement only implies such information as is not confidential. I do not think that parliament should be asked to assume any such thing. Todd's parliamentary government says :
It is imperative that parliament shall be duly informed of everything that may he necessary to explain the policy and proceedings of government in 'any part of the empire, and the fullest information is communicated by government to both Houses from time to time, upon matters of public concern.
This certainly was a matter of public concern, for it is in parliament that authoritative statements are made. Then hn goes on to say :
Whenever it is declared by the responsible servants of the Crown that any information sought for in parliament could not be supplied without inconvenience to the public service, or for other sufficient reasons, the House refrains from insisting upon its production.
But if such documents are in existence, and the government do not desire to bring them down, it is as I understand their duty to say to parliament :	We have
brought down all documents pretaining to this subject unless those of a confidential character; and when that statement is made, nothing more is said. Todd goes on to say :
And if the government object to produce any documents, on the ground that they are of a private and confidential description, it is not usual to insist upon their being furnished.
That is where I think the right bon. the premier failed in doing his duty, in not mentioning that there were other documents, but that owing to their being of a confidential character, he did not regard it in the public interest to bring them down. Todd goes on further to say :
It must always be remembered that all public transactions of state are necessarily official-
127 J
This being a transaction of state, the document must necessarily be official, and ought to he communicated" to parliament, -and that no public officer would he justified in withholding from official record and access, any document, emanating from himself.
Now, there must have been an answer to that document-from whom ? From the premier. On what ? On a question w'hich has engaged the attention of this House during two sessions. According to Todd's interpretation of parliamentary government, that was an official answer, and therefore ought to have been given to parliament. We have no information in regard to that.


Wilfrid Laurier: I may say to my hon. friend at once that there never was any written answer, either confidential or official, to that document.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Of course, that is a sufficient answer. I want ijo refer to another statement made by the premier which I think deserves some passing attention. In answer to the question why this document was read at all, he replied that, it was read because of the repeated contention that the Grand Trunk Pacific Company would have built their line from North Bay to the Pacific ocean without asking for any aid, had they been allowed to do it under - the charter which they desired tp get from parliament. Why, that contention was put forward time after time in the last session of parliament as well as in this session, and why was the document not then given to parliament as an answer ? Why was it delayed to the last moment, until the debate was practically closed ? It certainly could not have been because of its confidential character. If the government were compelled to give it in order to defend themselves and tp refute that argument, they -would have given it at the commencement of this debate rather than at the end.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
The following resolution, moved by Mr. Wm. S. Maclaren (Huntingdon) and adopted in Committee of the Whole, was read the second time, and agreed to, 'On division :
That it is expedient to bring in a Bill to prohibit the importation, manufacture and sa^e of cigarettes.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 75) to amend the Companies Act, 1902, (Mr. Cowiin) read the second time and House went into committee thereon.
On section 1,
1. Section 5 of the Companies Act, 1902, is amended by adding thereto the following subsection
[Stage Direction]
' 3. Nothing in this section, or in any charter or letters patent heretofore or hereafter issued, shall be deemed to prevent any company to which this Act applies from acting as a contractor in railway, telegraph or telephone construction.'
Robert Laird Borden: I would like tlie lion, gentleman to explain the reason for this legislation. Is it based on any similar legislation in Great Britain ? Does it follow any precedent 1 If not, wliat is the exact reason for it ? How would it operate with reference to existing companies ? I suppose it is not intended to be retroactive. Is it Intended to enlarge the powers of existing companies ? I have not considered the question at all, but I would like to have the hon. gentleman's views.


Mr. COWAN.: I do not think it would. Section 5 of the Companies Act is peculiarly worded, and it is very doubtful whether or not under that section a company cjould act as a contractor in railway, telegraph or telephone construction. It was never intended that they should not, and it was only for the purpose of clearing up an ambiguity in the Act that this section is proposed.


Robert Laird Borden: Has the hon. gentleman the section it is proposed to amend ?


Mahlon K. Cowan: I have sent for the statutes. I did not expect this Bill to be reached.	.


Mr. FITZPATRICK.: This clause is only intended to remove doubts which have arisen because of the construction which might be put on section 5 of the Companies Act. That section provides for the incorporation by letters patent of companies for any purposes or objects to which the legislative authority of parliament extends except-and these are the important words-
' except the construction and working of railways or of telephones or telegraph lines or the business of banking.' It is possible that this exception might be so construed so as to make it applicable to companies incorporated for the purpose of constructing railways, and it is to eliminate that doubt that my hon. friend has introduced this amendment.


Robert Laird Borden: Has my hon. friend's attention been directed to the somewhat peculiar wording of this amendment :
Nothing in this section, or in any charter or letters patent heretofore or hereafter issued, can he deemed to prevent any company to which this Act applies, from acting as a contractor in railway, telegraph or telephone construction.
There might be a construction of this section which we do not contemplate at this moment. It is possible that it might give a company, incorporated for an entirely different purpose, the power to contract for the construction of railways.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: 


Charles Fitzpatrick: I am not quite sure that the phraseology of this section is quite happy, and perhaps it might be improved. At the same time, I do not think that the possible construction which my hon. friend the leader of the opposition put upon it necessarily follows. We might let it stand.
Section allowed to stand.
On section 2,
2. Section 40 of the said Act is amended by adding thereto the following subsection : -
' 2. Whenever the par value of existing shares is less than one hundred dollars each the directors may, at any time, make a by-law consolidating them into shares of a larger amount; provided, however, that no such consolidated share shall exceed the par value of one hundred dollars.


Mahlon K. Cowan: Under the Act you can by by-law reduce shares of $100 down to $25, but there is no provision for grouping together shares of a lesser amount than $100 so as to bring them up to the par value of $100. There are some companies, whose shares are $25 each, which find it more convenient to group four together into one share at $100, and this Bill proposes to give such companies the right to do that hy bylaw.


Robert Laird Borden: As I understand the hon. gentleman, if you have a thousand shares of $50 each, you may consolidate them into 500 shares of $100 each.


Mahlon K. Cowan: Under the present law, you can reduce from $100 to $25, hut you cannot raise from $25 to $100.
Progress reported.



CRIMINAL CODE AMENDMENT.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 86) to amend the Criminal Code, 1S92, respecting the punishment of fraudulent debtors-(Mr. Bickerdike)-was read the second time and House went into Committee thereon.
On section 1,
1. Section 368 of The Criminal Code, 1892, is amended by adding the following after paragraph (b) thereof :-
* (c) who, being a trader and indebted to an amount exceeding one thousand dollars, is unable to pay his creditors In full, and has not, for five years next before such inability, kept such hooks of account as, according to the usual course of any trade or business in which he may have been engaged, are necessary to exhibit or explain his transactions, unless he be able to account for his losses to the satisfaction of the court or judge and to show that the absence of such books was not intended to defraud his creditors.'
Charles Fitzpatrick: It seems to me the promoter of this Bill should explain the object be has in view.


Mr. BICKERDIKE.: The object is simply to provide that the man in business who

becomes insolvent must be able to show, by books kept previous to his insolvency, that the money has been lost. A law similar to this is in force in many countries and has been found to work very well, more especially, perhaps, in Scotland and France. All the chambers of commerce and boards of trade in Canada have passed resolutions asking the House to give effect to this Bill. We do not wish to tell a man how he shall carry on his business or what books he shall keep ; but when he fails, if he does fail, he must be able to show where the money has gone.
&


Mr. LANCASTER.: To begin with, I am afraid there is an objection at the very outset to the form in which this Bill is drawn. It is not clear to whom it applies. For instance, I, for my part do not know what a ' trader ' is as designated by the Bill. 1 do not know what interpretation the courts of the different provinces would put upon the word. In the province of Ontario in different statutes dealing more or less with the question of insolvency the word ' trader ' is differently interpreted. Under some statutes a farmer might be a trader, while under others he would not be. I am satisfied that the same construction would not be given to this word in the Northwest Territories or in Quebec as would be given to it in Ontario and by juries of indifferent counties. My first suggestion to the hon. gentleman (Mr. Bickerdike) therefore, would be that he should define this term. Otherwise, the interpretation of the statute will cause a great deal of trouble in the courts. Secondly, even assuming that the principle is quite fair. I do not see why there should he this limitation of five years. The object, 1 suppose is to prevent a man from hiding liis assets-failing with a full pocket ?


Robert Bickerdike: Yes.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: If that is what the hon. gentleman (Mr. Bickerdike) contemplates, it seems to me the principle should apply without this limitation of five years. I do' not see why, merely because a man keeps books for five years before his failure. and has really defrauded his creditors before that but has succeeded in postponing his actual insolvency, he should be better treated than the man who had not kept books. I do not see why, because he has kept books for five years, the judge is to be denied jurisdiction to ascertain whether his business was conducted with the intent of defrauding his creditors. I do not know that I should say more at this time. But I would like to have a statement from the hon. gentleman of what is meant in the Bill by the word ' trader.'


Robert Bickerdike: I understand by the term ' trader ' just what the Bill says, a man indebted to an amount exceeding $1,000.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Will that apply to a lawyer, a doctor or a farmer ? I would like to know whom the hon. gentleman thinks this applies to. Does he think that under that term ' trader,' if a lawyer, or a doctor, or a farmer were indebted to an amount exceeding $1,000 this Act would apply to them?


Robert Bickerdike: I should think so, although I am not very well posted in these matters. But I think that any one who is buying goods from another person and owes him $1,000 would come under the provisions of this Act.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: In my opinion, the hon. gentleman will get no judge in Ontario to decide that a man is a trader in law merely because he sells somebody else $1,000 worth of property. If he wants to reach such a man, he had better amend his Bill.


Charles Fitzpatrick: Can the hon. gentleman tell me where, in the statutes of Ontario, outside the Abandonment of Property Act, a trader is defined ? I only know of one definition.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Yes, there is an Act respecting absconding debtors, and there is a special provision in regard to the Ontario Judicature Act which brings in all these terms. If I had half an hour in the library I could produce a good many Ontario statutes to that effect.
At six o'clock, House took recess.
After Recess,



CONSIDERED IN COMMITTEE-THIRD READINGS.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 82) respecting the Essex Terminal Railway Company.-Mr. Cowan.
Bill (No. 34) respecting the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company.-Mr. McCarthy.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 122) respecting the Ottawa Fire Insurance Company.-Mr. Rosamond.

[Stage Direction]
House in committee on Bill (No. 86) to amend the Criminal Code, 1892, respecting the punishment of fraudulent debtors.-Mr. Bickerdike.
On section 1,
Edward Arthur Lancaster: I want a better understanding of this Bill. At six o'clock I was saying that I could find in it no definition of the word ' trader.' If the provisions of this Bill are wise, it should apply to every person who might be included in the idea or term of ' trader,' which, as I said, might differ in different provinces. We have not had much time to consider the Bill, and I would suggest that the committee should rise, so that we may have an opportunity 1 to get the Bill into such shape as that per-

haps further discussion may be unnecessary. Since six o'clock I have looked into it, but I am not yet prepared to draft a clause which would meet the case. If we are dealing with the subject we should make it applicable, not only to traders, but to any other one who is guilty of the fraud. There is no definition of ' trader ' in the Criminal Code.


Charles Fitzpatrick: Nor anywhere else.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: In administering the Criminal Code everything must be held to be in favour of the accused, and a much stricter construction might possibly be put on the word [DOT] trader ' in a criminal case than in a civil case. If we mean that everybody dealing with another person who becomes a debtor should be subject to this clause we ought to say so, and not limit it t,o a ' trader.' I do not entirely disagree with the principle of the measure, but I want to help to make it sensible. The word * trader ' will not include every fraudulent debtor. The professional man is not a ' trader ' ; the courts of Ontario have held that a farmer is not a trader unless he is indicated in a special statute as such. Why should the professional classes be allowed to go scot-free, if they perpetuate fraud, and why should a special class of the community be punished ? We have no criminal definition of the word ' trader.'


Charles Fitzpatrick: Nor civil either.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: It is the criminal aspect that we are dealing with here. Suppose you prove that a man has done acts in contravention of this section, you would have to prove that he is a trader before punishing him, and there might be some difficulty in that, the jury would take its own view.


Charles Fitzpatrick: I am not in any u ay responsible for the drafting of this Bill, but I cannot understand the nature of my hon. friend's trouble about the word ' trader.' It is not an unusual word ; it is used in the Insolvency Act and in the Abandonment of Property Act, Ontario, and no one has ever attempted to define it. It is a term which has received judicial construction ; it was construed as far back as 1832 in the Meiklejohn case, and I do not know that the difficulty which my hon. friend has suggested has ever occurred to any one before. The Insolvency Act of 1864 says that the Act shall apply to traders only, and the same words are in the Abandonment of Property Act, Ontario.


Robert Laird Borden: I thought it was defined in the English Bankruptcy Act.


Charles Fitzpatrick: I do not know, but I have our own legislation here, and it is not defined.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Was it not defined in the old Insolvency Act ?


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Mr FITZPATRICK No.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: I was only a student when that Act went out of operation, but I remember we used to have a lot of discussion as to what was a trader, and I think it was defined.


Charles Fitzpatrick: My experience is that it is rather a doubtful expedient to define words unnecessarily in legislation.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: This is criminal legislation.


Charles Fitzpatrick: In criminal legislation or any other. I have practised for twenty odd years as Crown prosecutor and defender of criminals, and it has not been my experience that the code defines very particularly the class of offences to which it applies. My experience is that it is better to allow elastic terms to be used, and have the courts construe them.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: As this clause stands we would exclude from its operation many a man who would perpetrate just as great a fraud as the trader who would be punished.


Charles Fitzpatrick: That would be adopting imprisonment for debt which has disappeared from our land and which I do not wish to see revived. This legislation is intended to be applied to a special class known as traders, and there are reasons why it should be applied to that class!. It is part of their calling to get credit; credit is the essence of their business. They carry on their business largely because of the credit they are able to obtain. The object of this legislation as promoted by the boards of trade, in our province at all events, is to provide that those who are obliged to trade with the men who trade upon credit, or do trade with them should be in a position to ascertain whether they deal honestly with that which they get upon their credit. That is the object and it seems to me it is a most desirable object.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: I quite concur that we should hesitate before we pass any legislation which creates imprisonment for debt, but that is what is here being done with certain people of the country but not with all people. The hon. gentleman says they obtain credit by making representations. Every man whether a trader or not, obtains credit before he becomes in debt and does so more or less by his standing in the community, and by the representations he made before getting into debt on his credit. The objection I have to the Bill is that it seeks to impose imprisonment for debt on certain classes of the community without defining those classes with a certain definition of traders, and at the same time to allow other people equally guilty to go scot-free. The effect of the Bill is to provide

imprisonment for debt and nothing else for the men whom we are trying to reach by the Bill.


Robert Laird Borden: I thought my hon. friend the Minister of Justice was not right as to the exact provisions of the Insolvency Act of 1875. My recollection was directly the opposite of his. On looking at the statute I find that he is not accurate. It is defined there and defined very elaborately :
This Act shall apply to traders. The following persons and partnerships or companies exercising like trades, callings or employments-
And then it goes on with an enumeration of about thirty different trades or occupations and provides that the persons exercising the same shall be held to be traders within the meaning of the Act. The same is true of the English Bankruptcy Act and there is a large number of statutes in Great Britain as my hon. friend will see by reference to the text books in which the word ' trader ' is defined by statute. My hon. friend the Minister of Justice says he understands what the meaning of the word [DOT] trader ' is. I do not for one moment deny that. He is speaking more particularly of his own province, I suppose. For my own part and speaking for the province of Nova Scotia. I may say that there might be a great deal of doubt as to the meaning of this word in a statute of this kind. It was found necessary in previous legislation to define the word.


Charles Fitzpatrick: Not in the Act of 1864 I think my hon. friend, if he looks at that will see that it is not illuminative but enumerative.


Robert Laird Borden: I do not know whether it is illuminative or enumerative, but at all events it does this : It says the Act shall apply to traders and then gives a long list of persons who shall come within that definition. If there is any distinction between a definition of that kind and an enumeration, then it would he very useful to provide some similar enumeration in this statute because I do not know exactly what is meant by the term. For example ; W ould the Minister of Justice say that a farmer is included in the word ' trader ? ' He would say he is not.


Charles Fitzpatrick: It has been so decided time and again.


Robert Laird Borden: Suppose you have a farmer who does not confine himself to selling his own produce but who goes to market after buying produce from his neighbour. Would my hon. friend say that he would be a trader ? Perhaps there might be no difference of opinion in the province
of Quebec but these are laws that will apply to all provinces of the Dominion.


Charles Fitzpatrick: These points come up every day and they have been decided time and agfrin.


Robert Laird Borden: If the Minister of Justice will show us that this has all been decided there is no need of further discussion. It has not been decided in my own province and this Act applies to the whole Dominion. My hon. friend from Lincoln says it would be desirable, for the purpose of removing doubt, to define exactly what the word ' trader ' means. I think it would be desirable to define it for very obvious reasons, for the same reasons which have induced the legislature of Great Britain to define it. For example, in the English Statutes of 1869, I find there is a definition also. I have not the statute under my hand but in the English Bankruptcy Act of 1809, the word ' trader ' was defined as well as in our statutes of 1875. The word ' trader ' may have been given a more extended meaning by these definitions than it otherwise would hear under a definition of the courts. It is, however, equally important here to have the meaning of the word made certain, and I do not know exactly what my hon. friend the member who introduced the Bill (Mr. Bickerdike) intends by the word 1 trader.' I think it desirable to include in this Act a definition just as in the Insolvency Act of 1875, it was found necessary to give a definition of the word which went further than any decided case, up to that time. It is only for the purpose of makiug the statute clear that my hon. friend from Lincoln and Niagara (Mr. Lancaster) has made that suggestion and it is for the same reason that I am supporting him. But apart from this the principle of the Bill is somewhat important. I do not know that the Minister of Justice has come to any conclusion as to that, it we once arrive at the conclusion that the principle of the Bill is right and should be extended to some class or classes ot persons in the community I do not think you will have very much difficulty in deciding whether or not we should have a definition of the word ' trader.' That is a very minoi difficulty as compared with the more impoi t-ant question of whether or not the Ac its present form should apply to auj class of the community whatever.


Mr FITZPATRICK.: In regard to the Insolvency Act I find my memory was entirely at fault. The statute of 1864 applied in Lower Canada to traders only and in Upper Canada to all persons, whethei traders or not traders. I have looked through the Act and I do not find any definition beyond that.


Robert Laird Borden: I am speaking of the Act of 1875.


Charles Fitzpatrick: I hare that also and I find :
The following persons and partnerships or companies exercising like trades or callings or employments shall be held to be traders.
^, T1f tJs/el'y seileral I 1 should not like to tliink mat enumeration would, limit tlie general terms of the section. I should not like to give that as a considered opinion of law.


Robert Laird Borden: I do not quite understand my hon. friend.


Charles Fitzpatrick: I should not like to say in law that the following enumeration limited the general terms i have just described. I do not think the enumeration limits that at all.
The following persons and partnerships or companies exercising like trades, callings or employments shall be held to be traders.
Then we have the enumeration, not the definition, but the enumeration which my hon. friend (Mr. R. L. Borden) pointed out. Now that is only an enumeration it is not a definition. That is my opinion. If my hon. fiiend from Lincoln (Mr. Lancaster) would think we ought to define the word trader ' I would be quite willing to have the Bill considered further for the purpose of considering any definition he would suggest. I must confess notwithstanding what has occurred that I know of no definition in law in any statute in this country of the word 'trader.' I know of no definition, absolutely none. We have a judicial construction of the term in our province. We have it in Ontario and we have it in the Privy Council, but we have no statutory definition that I know of.


Louis Alfred Adhémar Rivet: I have been approached by the Chamber of Commerce of Montreal with the request to support this Bill, and I desire to say a few words upon it. This Bill has been instigated By almost all the boards of trade throughout the Dominion, because they feel that some legislation of this kind is badly needed at the present time, in the absence of an Insolvency Act, to protect not only the public at laige against fraudulent debtors, but also the traders themselves against themselves. The legislation that was presented to the Senate last year went through without any amendment from its original form. It was presented by the Hon. Senator Beique. Although some senators took exception to the Bill, they did not offer any amendment to it. They all agreed that legislation of this kind was needed. I do not myself really see the force of the objection of the hen. leader of the opposition in regard to the definition of the word 'trader.' I agree with the hon. Minister of Justice that that word is perfectly understood particularly in the province of Quebec. A trader is o man who is habitually engaged in commerce.


Robert Laird Borden: Would it include a commission merchant?


Louis Alfred Adhémar Rivet: 
Mr FITZPATRICK.: Would my hon friend drop the word ' practical ' and sav definition ' ?	'


Robert Laird Borden: I "will tell my hon. fiiend what there is here. There is an enumeration of about thirty trades which are included, and about six which are not included. I would call that a practical definition, and I would be content to take the same kind of definition in this statute.


Charles Fitzpatrick: This matter was discussed last year in the Senate, and ] have looked at the debate. With such Iegis-lation as we have already in existence. I think it is most desirable that traders should be made to understand that they cannot take advantage of the credit they enjoy for the purpose of defrauding their creditors, and if my hon. friend from Lincoln (Mr. Lancaster) can get us a definition of trader that will meet the case I would br inclined to go with him.


Robert Laird Borden: 


Robert Laird Borden: Would it include a wharfinger or warehouseman ?


Louis Alfred Adhémar Rivet: Yes, an agent-any man who engages in trade and commerce.


Robert Laird Borden: Would it include a farmer?


Louis Alfred Adhémar Rivet: Not a farmer who sells the products of his farm ' but if a farmer chose to deal in hay, for instance, or to engage in any other trade, I have no hesitation in saying that he would become subject to the application of this Bill. It seems to me perfectly simple. The line of demarkation could be easily drawn between people engaged in professions and people engaged in trades. I think there is no difficulty whatever in the definition of the word ' trader.' Now I come to the application of the Bill. I have said that it is badly needed ; and this is shown by the resolutions which have been passed by almost every board of trade throughout the Dominion. If I am allowed, I shall submit to this committee a report which has been made by a committee appointed by the Chambre de Commerce of Montreal, and adopted by that body. This report was

afterwards sent to every board of trade in the Dominion, and approved of by them. It was embodied in a resolution which was passed by the Chambre de Commerce afterwards, and which reads as follows :
Whereas, the failure to keep regular books of account is adverse to the interests of those who invest, their capital in commercial, industrial and financial enterprises by exposing them to endless losses, and is likewise the cause of a great many business failures ;
Whereas, the absence of books is also the cause of embezzlements, of all manner of breaches of confidence, of dishonest manipulations of funds, of obtaining moneys under falsa pretenses, and, finally, of fraudulent failures ;
Whereas, the enactment of a law, obliging persons or corporate bodies, doing business, to keep books of account, would have the salutary effect of checking these dishonest and illegal practices ;
Whereas, the making of accountancy obligatory for establishments or enterprises of a certain magnitude, would safeguard the general credit and would aid in the advancement and development of trade and of industries throughout the whole of Canada :
Resolved, that this ' Chambre de Commerce * reiterates its representations to the federal government, praying the introduction, at the next session, of a Bill obliging all persons, or bodies corporate, doing business, or who obtain credit, to the extent of one thousand dollars and upwards, to keep books sufficient, in case of failure, to render an account of their operations, and that such persons or bodies corporate, be held criminally responsible unless they show that the absence of regular books of account was not for the purpose of defrauding their creditors.	,
The fact that all the boards of trade throughout the Dominion approved of this resolution and passed similar resolutions, show's that there is a general feeling amongst commercial people in favour of legislation on this subject ; and their views thus formally expressed, should be taken into consideration by this parliament. The promoter of the Bill in the Senate last year, Senator Beique, stated that similar legislation exists in several countries, among others, Prance.
But such legislation -is far more stringent than what we are proposing, because in France the laws which regulate commerce are more extensive and complete than those which prevail here and in England. It seems to me that in France, public opinion is more disposed to favour the stringent legislation than it is in any other country. As lion, members know, there are in France two kinds of bankruptcy-the ordinary bankruptcy and the fraudulent, and there the laws go very far in the way of regulating trade and Commerce. The legislation in that country was found too stringent, and the promoters of this Bill found it expedient to adopt rather the legislation which exists in Scotland, and which has been in existence there for many years and has given every satisfaction. Of course we do not want to go too far, but this legislation
is only a step in advance, and later on, if no general insolvency law be adopted, a siep further ought to be made.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.



NORTHWEST TERRITORIES REPRESENTATION ACT.

Mr.   T.@: CHASE CASGRAIN (Montmorency) moved the second reading of Bill (No. 117) to amend the Northwest Territories Representation Act.


Mr. LEMIEUX.: I understand that the Bill is not printed in French.


Mr. CASGRAIN.: I cannot understand why it is not, because it has been on the order paper over three weeks. I am inclined to think that it is, and that the order paper is mistaken. I would ask my hon. friend if possible not to press his objection, because this probably will be the last day on which I can bring the matter before the House. It is really a very important Bill. Its object is to introduce into the Northwest Territories Representation Act the provisions of the general election laws regarding the agents of candidates.


Mr. SIFTON.: Where does the demand for the legislation come from ?


Charles Eusèbe Casgrain: From the Northwest Territories. I do not undertake to say that I represent the Territories at all, but influential gentlemen from that part of the country have asked me to introduce this legislation, I do not think however that I need any special mandate. If I find in such an important statute as the election law of the Northwest Territories a section which evidently requires amendment, I do not think I require any distinct mandate from the Territories to propose an amendment. I am sure that my hon. friend the Minister of the Interior will concur in that view. I am sure he will agree that we have a general mandate here to represent the people and not only those parts of the country from which we come. If my hon. friend the Solicitor General will wihdraw his objection, I think he will be convinced that he has done well. My own opinion is that the Bill is printed in French and that the error is in the order paper.


Robert Laird Borden: It was read the first time on the 19th of May.


Charles Eusèbe Casgrain: Yes. Under the 48tli section of the Northwest Territories Representation Act, the enumerator can issue as many certificates as he pleases, while under the general election law he can only issue a certain number. The general trend of legislation on this subject has been to limit, as much as possible, the number of certified agents, so that no personation, as far as possible, may take place. It is


Clifford Sifton: My hon. friend (Mr. Cas-grain) has the statute before him. Will he say who are entitled to receive certificates ?


Charles Eusèbe Casgrain: The deputy returning officer, the poll clerk and any agent. That is where the difficulty comes in. I understand there is no difficulty about the deputy returning officer or the poll clerk, but there is difficulty about the agent. All we ask is that the enumerator be put in such a position that he will be obliged to give certificates to those on either side who ask for them ; and, secondly, that he will give only three certificates. The General Election law says two certificates, hut this provides for three. I remember that in the provincial legislature of Quebec, when this question came up, it was agreed- on both sides that is was a wise provision to limit, as much as possible, the number of certificates that might he given. And in the election law that was passed by that House when I had the honour of sitting there and of proposing the measure, two certificates were allowed to he given by the deputy returning officer to the representatives of the candidates. Here, owing to the different circumstances in the Northwest Territories, the Bill allows three.


Robert Laird Borden: And they to he given by the enumerator.


Charles Eusèbe Casgrain: Yes. That is another circumstance made necessary by the condition of affairs in the Northwest Territories. The Bill goes on to say :
(c)	the certificates issued by each enumerator
shall he numbered consecutively in the order of issue ;	.
(d)	the certificates shall not he issued in blank.
This is to do away with another source of fraud. Certificates in many instances, before the General Election Act was passed, were issued in blank, so that anybody could get them. In fact, the agent of the candidate or, sometimes, the candidate himself, went about with blank certificates giving them to anybody, thereby again increasing the danger of impersonation.
(e)	the certificate shall contain in writing the name of the person to whom it is issued, and shall state that he is a qualified elector, the polling division in which he is entitled to vote, and, if he is a deputy returning officer, agent or poll clerk, the polling station for which he is appointed.
Section 2 of the Act provides that this certificate shall be filed with the returning

officer, and that an entry shall be made in the poll-book opposite the voter's name if the deputy returning officer or poll clerk or agent has voted. There is no political controversy about this matter. The House, having, in 1900, adopted the system set forth in the present Bill, has absolutely no reason for rejecting this measure. It places both parties on the same footing; and I should be very loath to believe for an instant that hon. gentlemen opposite would wish to take advantage of the unsatisfactory condition of the law to-day. All we ask is that the law which applies to other parts of the Dominion should apply to the Northwest Territories.


Clifford Sifton: I had no intention, in addressing the question I did to my hon. friend (Mr. Oasgrain) as to the source of complaint in regard to the present law, to suggest that any member of the House had not a perfect right to introduce a Bill to amend any public statute. I was asking for information, to ascertain whether or not, as a matter of fact, complaints had been made as to the operation of the present law, and, if so, from what source those complaints had come. I asked that question, because, so far as I am concerned, my attention had not been drawn to any complaints made as to the operation of the present law. The representation law for the Northwest Territories, as the House is aware, is not the same as the law which governs the rest of the Dominion. Parliament has thought well that a different law should be in force there, because of the fact that, owing to the sparseness of population and the extent of the districts, the ordinary law as respects the compilation of voters' lists could not be conveniently applied. There have been some modifications of the election law made since 1896 in the direction of protecting the opposition, or the party not in control of the official machinery, and considerable improvement has been made in that respect. I do not think that any objection could be taken to an amendment which has for its purpose to limit or prevent the possibility of fraud. But, for myself, not being aware that my hon. friend (Mr. Oasgrain) intended to move his Bill this evening, I have not had the opportunity to give the matter the consideration, in consultation with the members of the Northwest Territories, that I would like to have given, in order to ascertain how the law has worked. I would not like to express a_ positive opinion against the proposal of my hon. friend, nor would I, without looking into the matter, express an opinion in favour of. it. I move the adjournment of the debate, so that the matter can be considered at a future time.


Charles Eusèbe Casgrain: I would have no objection to the motion of my hon. friend (Mr. Sifton), and I understand that the reasons he has given for the adjournment of the debate are quite plausible. But I am under
the impression that this is the last day when public Bills can be brought up by private members, unless they can be brought up on Monday.


Wilfrid Laurier: They can be brought up on Monday.


Charles Eusèbe Casgrain: Under these circumstances, I have no objection to the motion.
Motion (Mr. Sifton) agreed to, and debate adjourned.



YUKON TERRITORY REPRESENTATION ACT, 1902, AMENDMENT.

[Stage Direction]
On the order :
Second reading of Bill (No. 118) to amend the Yukon Territory Representation Act, 1902.-Mr. Oasgrain.
Clifford Sifton: I may say to my hon. friend (Mr. Oasgrain) before proceeding with this motion that it is the intention of the government to introduce a Bill for the purpose of amending the election law in connection with the Yukon Territory, and, possibly, the amendment which my hon. friend desires to suggest can be more conveniently discussed then. We will give the hon. gentleman an opportunity to bring forward his amendment when our Bill is before the House.


Charles Eusèbe Casgrain: If I had not been told, in answer to a question which I put at the beginning of the session, that it was the intention of the government to amend the Yukon Representation Act


Clifford Sifton: I think the hon. gentleman was told exactly the opposite.


Charles Eusèbe Casgrain: No-unless I completely misunderstood the answer. Had I not understood that the government did not intend to amend the Act, I would not have introduced the Bill. There are some parts of the present law so glaringly inconsistent with some other parts that it is necessary that the government should amend it. I would draw my hon. friend's (Mr. Sifton's) attention, for instance, to the oath. He will see at once that the oath described in the schedule of the Act is not at all in accordance with the provisions of the Act itself.


Clifford Sifton: If the hon. gentleman will move the second reading and make the explanations he intended to make, we will then have the benefit of his remarks so that we can consider them in connection with the Bill we intend to introduce.


Charles Eusèbe Casgrain: I move that Bill (No. 118) to amend the Yukon Territory Representation Act, 1902, be read the second time. Now, here is the oath :
You do swear that you are of the male sex and a British subject, that you are not an Indian, that you are of the full age of twenty-one years, and that you have resided in the

Northwest Territories for at least twelve months and in this electoral district for at least three months immediately preceding the issue of the writ of election.
Now, the Act itself does not say anything about three months ; the only provision in the statute requires a residence of twelve months. I believe this oath was taken from the old Northwest Territories Representation Act and put into this Act without any consideration of the text of the statute itself. Then there is another grievance to be found in the Act. The enumerators prepare the list under section 29, which reads as follows :
Each such enumerator, upon his appointment and having first taken the oath of office, shall immediately thereafter compile a list of the persons qualified as electors to vote at the election then pending, for the polling division or each of the polling divisions for which he has been appointed ; and he shall make three plainly written copies thereof, with the names of the voters alphabetically arranged, giving the occupation and residence of each voter, in the form K in the schedule to this Act.
2. In the compilation of such list the enumerator may only enter thereon the names of such person or persons as are, by statutory declaration filed with him, declared, by such person or some agent having a personal knowledge of the facts declared to, to possess the qualifications necessary to entitle to vote under the provisions of this Act.
Then section 30 says the lists must be posted up. Now as to the correction of the voters' list section 31 reads :
If any enumerator, at any time after posting up any voters' list and seven days before the polling day, is fully satisfied, from representations made to him by any credible person, that the name of any qualified voter has been omitted from the voters' list of the polling division to which such voter belong, he shall add such name to the copy of the list in his possession below his own signature, and shall attest such addition by his initials ; if the enumerator, in like manner, is fully satisfied that there is on the list the name of any person who is not qualified as a voter in such polling division, he may draw erasing lines through such name, and write his own initials opposite thereto in the column for remarks.
Hon. gentlemen will notice that in the compilation of the list the enumerator can only put upon the list those persons whom he is satisfied are qualified to be electors by the statutory declaration filed with him. while in the correction of the list, which is just as important an operation as the compilation of the list, he will take the statement only or the representation made by any credible person. So that whilst the law requires for the compilation of the list a statutory declaration as to the qualification of .those persons who are to be electors according to the list, in the correction of the list the enumerator shall take only the unsworn representation


Charles Eusèbe Casgrain: of a credible person, either to put a new name upon the list or to erase from the list the names of those persons who have been put upon it. It seems to me that this is an anomaly, and that the same precaution should be taken for the correction of the list as for its compilation. If the law is that a sworn declaration shall be made to the enumerator to permit him to put a man's name upon the list the same sworn declaration should be made for the correction, and the Bill which I propose in the House is to that effect, that in order to put another name upon the list which is not already upon it, or in order to take a man's name off the list, a sworn declaration should be filed with the enumerator. Now, section 32 says :	*
Every enumerator, having revised and corrected such retained copy of each voters' list compiled by him, if he deem such correction necessary, as provided in the next preceding section, shall write at the foot of such copy and close to the last name thereon, two days before the polling day, a certificate in the form of the second certificate contained in form K in the schedule to this Act.
33 :
The enumerator shall deliver the voters' list so certified forthwith, or before 8 o'clock in the morning of the polling day to the deputy returning officer for the polling division to which it relates ; and such list, as received by such deputy returning officer, shall be the voters' list for such polling division, subject to be further corrected on the polling day as hereinafter provided.
4G :
The poll clerk shall make such additions, alterations, and erasures in the voters' list, and such entries in the poll book as the deputy returning officer directs him to make, as is required by any provision of this Act.
So there seems to be no finality. What happens is this :	That that list is not
really final before a man actually comes up to vote ; at all events, the enumerator is only required to give the list which he has compiled to the deputy returning officer before 8 o'clock on the polling day.


Charles Fitzpatrick: It is two days before polling day.


Charles Eusèbe Casgrain: It should be, but it is not. I have just read to the contrary from the Act itself. There is no finality, because the deputy returning officer or the poll clerk shall, under section 40, make such additions, alterations or erasures in the voters' list as the deputy returning officer directs him to make as is required by any provision of this Act. Now I am told-I do not know whether it is true or not-that on the very day of the last election a great many people were brought to the polling booths and their names were put upon the list while the voting was going on. It seems to me that for the pro-

tection of all parties, some finality should be given to this list a certain number of days before the polling takes place.


Clifford Sifton: My hon. friend's information is that names are put on the lists without any evidence of qualification ?


Charles Eusèbe Casgrain: Yes. That is my information, and I have got it from very respectable people whose word I cannot doubt, that men were brought up on election clay while the voting was going on, and without any evidence whatever as to their qualification, they were admitted as voters and they cast their vote-admitted by the-poll clerk under the direction of the deputy returning officer.


Clifford Sifton: Without a declaration ?


Charles Eusèbe Casgrain: Yes, without a declaration. I may tell my hon. friend that the statute does not require it. The enumerator is not there at the polling booth, and under section 46, it is open to anybody who wants to stretch the wording of the law to do exactly what it is alleged has been done during the election, because it says that the poll clerk shall make such additions, alterations and erasures in the voters' list and such entries in the poll book as the deputy returning officer directs him to make. The hon. gentleman will see that this law opens the door wide to fraud. Now, what I propose to do by the Bill before the House is simply to say that a certain number of days before polling day the lists shall be finally compiled- say two or three days, it doesn't matter very much except for distance.
I am not sufficiently familiar with the country to say what number of days would be sufficient, but it seems to me that each party should be on an equal footing and this list so prepared, should be open to the inspection of everybody so that any person complaining that his name is not on the list or that the list contains the name of any man who has not a right to vote, should be able to go to the enumerator and have the list corrected. But this should be done a certain number of days before polling day, so that no one should be surprised and that on polling day especially, no new names should be added to the list. These are the principal provisions of the Bill submitted to the House. There are other sections also which are not quite so important, for instance I am of the opinion that the discretion vested in the Governor in Council as to the fixing of the date for the election in the Yukon Territory should be abridged, and that a certain limit should be fixed to the time within which the election may be brought on.


Clifford Sifton: The attention of the government has been drawn to the fact that the Act respecting representation in the Northwest Territories, which was largely modelled
upon the old Northwest Territories Representation Act, is in some respects not adapted to the requirements of the country and is unnecessarily cumbersome and expeusive in its operation, and it is the intention of the government to introduce a Bill during this session for the purpose of modifying the provisions of the Bill in some respects. Our attention has not been drawn to the fact that any allegation has been made of such an abuse as that of which my hon. friend Mr. Casgrain) complains, but there could be no possible objection to considering carefully what he has said in reference to it and the amendment which he has proposed. Then if it seems desirable to incorporate these amendments in the government Bill, we could do so when the Bill comes up, and if we should differ from my hon. friend, he would then have an opportunity of moving his amendments. I would therefore move the adjournment of the debate.


Charles Fitzpatrick: I would like my hon. friend (Mr. Casgrain) to tell me whether he has considered the question as to whether the attestation of the list has to be made forty-eight hours before polling, because really, I must confess to my hon. friend I am entirely at sea.


Charles Eusèbe Casgrain: Yes. There is one provision of the Act which says it should be, but there is another which says the list can be altered on polling day.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Which is the last ?


Charles Eusèbe Casgrain: They are in the same statute, but the one I have mentioned last is the last.


Charles Fitzpatrick: I was under the impression that the list has to be closed forty-eight hours before polling.


Robert Laird Borden: The difficulty is that there are two inconsistent provisions in the statute, the provision to which the hon. the Minister of Justice refers and another which is inconsistent with it and upon which action was taken in the recent election. I may say, not only with regard to this, but with regard to the Bill we were discussing a moment ago, that similar representations to those which my hon. friend (Mr. Casgrain) says have come to him, have been made to me in very emphatic terms, not only about the possibility, but the performance at elections in the Northwest Territories and in the Yukon.
Motion (Mr. Sifton) agreed to, and debate adjourned.



CANADA TEMPERANCE ACT AMENDMENT.

Mr.  B. B.@: LAW (Yarmouth) moved the second reading of Bill (No. 119) to amend the Canada Temperance Act.


Charles Fitzpatrick: I would ask my hon. friend to allow this matter to stand. I have not had an opportunity of looking into this

Bill. It -was only printed and distributed yesterday by mistake, and I have bad no chance of considering its terms.
Order allowed to stand.



EXCHEQUER COURT ACT AMENDMENT.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. CHARLES FITZPATRICK (Minister of Justice) moved tbe third reading of Bill (No. 37) to amend tbe Exchequer Court Act. He said : This is tbe Act which extends the right of appeal so far as the government is concerned to enable us to take an appeal in any case whatever the amount involved may be.
Leighton Goldie McCarthy: Has the subject the same right ?	-


Charles Fitzpatrick: No.
Mr. McCarthy. Why not ?


Robert Laird Borden: I would like to ask the Minister of Justice (Mr. Fitzpatrick) why the Crown should have the right of appeal while the subject has not that right ? It seems to me a rather unusual practice. Of course the prerogative of the Crown extends so as to give the Crown a great many privileges to which the subject is not entitled, but the trend of modern legislation has been to place the Crown and the subject altogether on an equality in regard to matters of this kind. For example, the Crown could at one time exact costs while the subject was not entitled to exact costs, but I think the trend of the decisions in modern times is that where the Crown is entitled to receive costs, it shall pay costs, and where it is not entitled to receive costs it shall not have to pay costs. If the Crown is to have a right to appeal why should not the subject have the right to appeal in cases in the Exchequer court or anywhere else ?


Charles Fitzpatrick: My hon. friend is, of course, aware that the right of the subject to sue is only by exception. The subject nowr has practically the right to bring the Crown before the courts. We have a practice in Ottawa that does not, I think, exist elsewhere ; a fiat is granted to any person, and any person who has a claim against the Crown has a right to exercise it. The result is that we are very frequently compelled to defend ourselves in suits in which the subject has a very doubtful claim indeed, and the amount of costs thus incurred is sometimes very large. The point now is that so far as concerns the Exchequer Court which is of somewhat recent creation, the practice is not very well settled, and it frequently happens that points come up in a comparatively trivial suit which ought to be decided in a definite manner by the Supreme Court, so that we may know the practice and be in a position to decide whether or not it is proper to introduce legislation. I must confess that I can see no Mr. FITZPATRICK.
great hardship in the present proposal. My experience in practice at Ottawa has been that in cases before the Exchequer Court, the Crown more frequently receives the short end and does not very often receive much sympathy from the courts. It is desirable that we should have an opportunity of having questions of principle settled by resort to a final court. I do not think there is much hardship in this matter, because in all eases where more than $500 is involved there is an appeal on both sides. But there may be large principles involved in cases over very small amounts, perhaps not exceeding $100 or $200. The principle involved in such a case may apply to a dozen cases. I have one case in my mind now where there are fifty-two cases depending on a judgment in a matter in which the amount involved does not exceed $500, and I think it is desirable in the interest of the Crown, in the interest of the government, that we should have an opportunity of having these things settled finally by judgment of the Supreme Court.


Charles Eusèbe Casgrain: It seems to me that all these questions of prerogative have been vastly changed in the last few years, by reason of the change in the relations of the Crown to the subject. When these prerogatives were established, the Crown had not gone into the business of running railways and of doing a great many other things which are done now, and it seems to me that instead of increasing the prerogatives of the Crown and the privileges which the Crown possesses before all the courts in this country and in England, the tendency should be to limit them as much as possible. I really do not see now why a man who is injured on a railway or on some public work carried on by the Crown, should be obliged to go to the Governor in Council and ask for permission to sue the Crown.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Why ?


Charles Eusèbe Casgrain: Because if the Crown goes into the business of running the railways and owning steamships, it becomes more like a common subject and in its relations to the common subject, should have no greater privilege extended to it thaiTthe privileges which are extended to the subject. I am aware of many instances in which the fiat has been withheld without any justification whatever, but I do not say that sueh has been done by this government.


Robert Laird Borden: It has.


Charles Eusèbe Casgrain: Probably, but I am not personally aware of it. It seems to me that it is placing the subject in a disadvantageous position, when you give the crown the right to appeal, and deprive him ot that right, so that the Crown can carry on litigation at the expense of the subject. The Crown should not be permitted to appeal simply for the purpose of getting questions of principle decided by the highest

court, unless indeed, it is provided that there shall he no costs against the subject.


Charles Fitzpatrick: The judges of the Supreme Court will take care of that.


Robert Laird Borden: Some of the reasons suggested by the Minister of Justice as to the Crown getting scant justice, are rather a reflection on the court than argument for legislation of this kind. Why should the Crown be entitled to an appeal at the expense of the subject ? If a test case is selected on which many other cases depend, why should the unfortunate suppliant have to bear the general costs in the event of the Crown succeeding 1 Where the subject has not the right to appeal, it should be provided that the Crown, if successful, cannot recover costs against the subject.


Charles Fitzpatrick: That does not seem unreasonable ; it is the practice any way.


Robert Laird Borden: The courts vary more or less.


Charles Fitzpatrick: Not the Supreme Court.


Robert Laird Borden: If I were a litigant, I would feel more comfortable if protected by statute.
At present the Crown has discretion to allow, or to refuse, a fiat on a petition of right. I remember on one occasion, the Postmaster General refused a flat in some thirty or forty cases, and he refused simply because in his pure unadulterated wisdom,
[DOT] he decided that they had not what he called any moral claim against the Crown. Well, that ought to be decided by the courts and not by a minister. I do not believe that practice is conducive to good government. I agree with the Minister of Justice that where persons are likely to run up a large amount of costs, it would be proper for the Crown to insist that before a petition of right is granted there should be security for costs. 1 would protect the Crown, but I would not allow the Crown to deprive a subject of the right to enforce what he thinks a good claim against the Crown. Some years ago when 1 discussed this matter, the Minister of Justice seemed to share my views. I would ask him now to take this matter into consideration, and to determine whether some amendment to the law in this respect should not be made. My recollection is that in England petitions of right are allowed with much greater freedom than they are here.


Charles Eusèbe Casgrain: They are hardly ever refused in England.


Robert Laird Borden: I would suggest that this Bill should be amended so that in cases where the subject has not the right of appeal, If the Crown succeeds on appeal, the subject should not be liable for costs.


Charles Fitzpatrick: My opinion has
never varied with respect to the granting of flats in petitions of right. Except in extreme cases, I have always been under the impression that the proper course is to give the suppliant an opportunity to litigate his claim before the courts.


Robert Laird Borden: Hear, hear.


Charles Fitzpatrick: The courts are
established to decide controversies between subjects, and when the Crown, as is the practice nowadays, extends its operations beyond the original limits assigned to it, we ought deal generously with those who make applications for petitions of right. That has been our practice recently at all events. I have not consulted the other members of the government, but is is my personal intention to introduce legislation this session for the purpose of adapting our practice with respect to petitions of right, to the practice in the province of Quebec which provides that security for costs ought to be given in all cases. I would not leave it discretionary with the Crown, because if the Crown wished to favour a suppliant it might be possible to say that he should not give security. It would be better to have a statutory enactment requiring security for costs in proportion to the amount in controversy between the Crown and the suppliant. Perhaps ihe debate on this Bill had better be adjourned for the purpose, of enabling me to consider how far I may incorporate in the Bill these other matters which I have in mind now. It is a very fair proposition, that when the Crown appeals for the purpose of having a question of principle settled, the costs should not be granted against the subject in the event of the Crown succeeding. That is the practice in the courts now ; and we might make it statutory.


Leighton Goldie McCarthy: I would go a step further. If the subject recovers in the court of first instance on a small claim ; and if the Crown appeals for the purpose of establishing a principle on which many thousands of dollars might depend, it is not fair that the subject should be dragged through the courts on account of his small claim, and made to pay even his own costs on the appeal. The Privy Council in England frequently, when a rich corporation asks for leave to appeal, says, you may appeal if you wish, but you have to bear the costs of both sides in any event. This is a case in which I think the Crown should bear not only its own costs, but the suppliant's costs as well.
Mr. LEMIETjX. I want to add that since I have been Solicitor General I have had occasion to examine the records of the department with regard to several cases in which petitions of right have been granted by the Crown, and I may say to my hon. friend

from Montmorency (Mr. Casgrain) that ts my personal knowledge, generally speaking, the Crown has been very liberal in granting such petitions of right. I can assure him that in many eases the Crown has, for instance, renounced its right to invoke prescription. The suppliants are well protected, and there has been no case of hardship, at least during the few months that I have been in the office.
Motion (Mr. Fitzpatrick) agreed to, and debate adjourned.



YUKON TERRITORY ACT AMENDMENT.

[Stage Direction]
House again in committee on Bill (No. 39) to amend the Yukon Territory Act.-Mr. Fitzpatrick.
Charles Fitzpatrick: As this Bill was discussed in committee before, I do not know that it is necessary for me to add anything to what I said then, except perhaps for the benefit of those who were not present then, to say that the intention is merely to give effect to ordinances passed by the Yukon Council. By subsection 3 of section 5 of the Yukon Territory Act, it is provided that natural-born and naturalized male British subjects in the territory, who have attained the full age of twenty-one years and have continuously resided there for a period of not less than twelve months, shall elect five representatives to the territorial council, each voter to vote for five representatives. The Yukon Council, acting upon what they conceived to be the law, decided to divide the Yukon Territory into five electoral districts and give to each elector a vote fo>-the representative of his particular district. That was not the original intention, but perhaps, on the whole, there is nothing to complain of in that regard, and under the circumstances the object of this legislation is to give effect to that ordinance sub-dividing the territory into five districts, and giving a right to vote to each elector who has resided in the Yukon Territory during twelve months and in the district during three months.


Robert Laird Borden: How many elected members and how many appointed member's are there in the council ?


Charles Fitzpatrick: Five elected, five nominated and the commissioner.


Robert Laird Borden: What is the scheme ? Is it to produce a sort of balance of power between the appointed and the elected members ?


Charles Fitzpatrick: I could not say what the scheme was, as I was not here when it was adopted.


Robert Laird Borden: Has there not been some question in reference to the elected and the appointed members, and did not the Minister of Justice give some opinion as to what would be the proper course to pursue under such circumstances ?	i


Rodolphe Lemieux: 


Charles Fitzpatrick: I have no recollection of that.


Robert Laird Borden: Was not some question submitted as to whether or not a certain resolution proposed in the council would be a proper one, having regard to the powers of the Yukon Council and its relation to the administration of the government here at Ottawa ? My attention has been directed to something of that kind, but I have not the details here at this moment.


Charles Fitzpatrick: If my hon. friend has any object, I shall be glad to inquire into that.


Robert Laird Borden: I should be glad to have the lion. Minister of Justice look, it up, and if he would be good enough, after doing so, to bring it down if doing so is not against the public interest, I would esteem it a favour. As this Bill has been discussed already in committee, I would not ask him to postpone it further, but perhaps he will let the third reading stand until we get the information referred to ?
Bill reported.



SUPPLY-PROTECTION FOR FARM AND GARDEN PRODUCTS.

[Stage Direction]
Sir WILFRID LAURIER moved that the House go into Committee of Supply.
['Yes.\nSome resolutions reported.']
Mr. R. BLAIN (Peel).: Before you leave the chair, Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct the attention of the government to the question of better protection to the farm and market-garden products. I beg to move the following amendment :
That a large and increasing quantity of farm and market garden products is being imported into Canada.
That our own country is fully capable of furnishing an ample supply of such products for our own market.
That under an adequately protective tariff such sufficient supply would always he produced and marketed in Canada.
And that such readjustment should include as far as practicable the imposition of specific instead of ad valorem duties.
That in the opinion of this House the duties upon the said products should be so readjusted during the present session as to secure the Canadian market to the Canadian producer.
Among the requests that the farmers and gardeners make to the government are the following :	That duties be imposed as follows :
Cents.
Asparagus	per	pound	3Cabbages	each	3Cauliflowers	each	3Celery	per doz. 25Beans	bush.	45Green cucumbers	per doz. 20Onions	bush, of 56 lbs. 40Tomatoes	per	pound	5Watermelons	
y.each	5Muskmelons cantaloup	
(.each	3Spinach	per	bush.	25
I wish to direct the attention of the government to this very important question. In the session of 1901 a deputation waited upon the hon. the Minister of Customs and drew his attention to the fact that very uneven tariff conditions existed between Canada and the United States, in so far as farm and market-garden products were concerned, and the hon. the leader of the opposition moved a resolution during that session which reads as follows :
This House regarding the operation of the present, tariff as unsatisfactory, is of'opinion that this country requires a declared policy of such adequate protection to its labour, agricultural products, manufactures and industries as will at all times secure the Canadian market for Canadians.
And that the financial policy of the government should include a measure for the thorough and judicious readjustment of the tariff at the present session.
It was thought that the government would do something for the farmers and market-gardeners in the session of 1901.
1 do not think that any government ever had a better opportunity to do something for so important a class, because the resolution 1 have just read declared the opinion of the hon. leader of the opposition and his followers upon that question. With this expression of policy on the part of the leader of the opposition and his supporters, the government could have had a resolution adopted unanimously giving to the farmers and market-gardeners the protection they are entitled to. However, in the session of 1901 that resolution was voted down. The hon. leader of the opposition and his supporters recorded their votes in favour of better protection to the farmers and market-gardeners and the right hon. gentleman and his supporters voted down that resolution, so that a distinct issue between the two parties was created on that subject. The Liberal-Conservative party voted in favour of protection and the right bon. gentleman and his supporters opposed better protection to the farmers and market-gardeners. Nothing was done in the session of 1901, and in the session of 1902 another deputation waited on the hon. the Minister of Finance. A very large and influential deputation was received from the province of Ontario and Quebec and submitted resolutions for consideration by that bon. minister and bis colleagues-resolutions which had been passed by the Farmers and Market-Gardeners Association of Quebec and Ontario. This large and influential deputation pointed out to the minister that something should be done for the farmers and market-gardeners if they were to retain the Canadian market. During that session the hon. member for Laval (Mr. Leonard) moved this resolution :	[DOT]
j That it is greatly in the interests of the | market-gardeners and the farmers that the ; duties on our Canadian garden products be i raised so as to give an effective protection against foreign competition.
That resolution expressed the policy of the opposition in this House, but when it was submitted to a vote, the right hon. the leader of the government and his followers voted it down. In the session of 1903, the hon. member for Laval again introduced the same resolution, and important speeches were made pressing some very important facts on the attention of the government, showing that a large quantity of market and farm products was being imported into this country, coming directly into competition with the products of our farms and gardens. It was pointed out also that the present tariff does not give any special advantage because under tlie ad valorem system of duties, very large quantities of goods were brought in under value, so that there was practically no protection whatever to the interests of the farmers and market-gardeners. This, Sir, is an important question, and I wish to place upon record the one-sided tariff that exists between Canada and the United States. The United States tariff is 45 cents per bushel on beans. Canadian tariff is 15 cents, the United States tariff is 25 cents per bushel on potatoes ; the Canadian is 15 cents. On apples the American tariff is 75 cents per barrel and the Canadian 40 cents. On onions the American tariff is 40 cents per bushel, and the Canadian 25 per cent ad valorem. Cabbages, under the American tariff, are charged 3 cents per head, and under the Canadian 25 per cent ad valorem.
You will see, Sir, by this short list that the duties are entirely in favour of the United States farmer as against the Canadian, and what our resolution asks is that the Canadian tariff shall be made equal to the American. Would you allow me to give an example of how this one-sided tariff works out ? Last year we imported for home consumption from the United States $228,640 of potatoes and we exported but $50,969 worth.


Mr. HEYD.: What kind of potatoes did we import ?


Richard Blain: The ordinary field potato, not the sweet potato. Of apples we imported from the United States last year $81.266 worth, while we exported to the United States $11,508 worth ; or a difference in favour of the United States on apples alone of $69,758. So, on these two items that I have mentioned-potatoes and apples- the balance of trade was $241,429 in favour of the United States farmer.
I wish now to give a list-not a complete list by any means but only a short one-of other imports Into this country under this



400S
one-sided tariff, for tile last year for which we have the returns :
Imported for home consumption for the year
ending 30th June, 1903 :
Potatoes	$228,640
Fresh tomatoes	 69,014
Tomatoes and other vegetables, including corn and	beans in cans	 115,905
Strawberries, blackberries, gooseberries
and raspberries	 89,413
Beans	 25,590
Cherries	     14,754
Grapes	 36,970
Apples, green or ripe	 79,497
Drier apples	 7,624
Melons	 16,318
Peaches	 70,903
Total	$754,638
That is the amount we have imported from the United States of these articles, coming in direct competition with similar products of the Canadian farmer. There was a time when it was said that we in Canada could not produce all these articles. Indeed, in the discussion of last session and the session before, some lion, gentlemen on the other side ventured to say that we could not produce many of these articles that we were importing into Canada, or that we could not produce them early enough in the sea-son, when there was a certain demand among the richer classes in Canada for them. But the conditions are constantly changing. There was a time in the history of this country-and not so many years ago-when it was thought that we could not produce roses, when it was thought that, if we required cut flowers in our larger cities, we had to import them from the United States. But (things are entirely changed owing to the thrift of the Canadian people ; and, in the town in which I have the honour to live, there is a large rose-growing industry covering thirteen acres with grass ; and last year this company, the Dale Estate, which is so well managed by Mr. Duggan and Mr. Algie. produce more than $100,000 worth of cut flowers and these were sold from one end of Canada to the other while some small proportion, I am glad to say was exported to the United States. During this session a gentleman from Manitoba gave his evidence before the Committee on Agriculture and Colonization. I refer to Mr. A. P. Stevenson, a prominent Manitoban. As to fruit-growing in that province, Mr. Stevenson pointed out that, not many years ago it was thought impossible to produce apples in Manitoba : but the farmers there have faced this fruit problem and now there is some portion of the apples used in Manitoba that are produced in that province. And he ventured to say that, in a very short time, all the apples required for home consumption in Manitoba could be produced by the Manitoba farmers themselves. That should set at rest the question whether Canada Mr. BLAIN.
can produce the articles which we are now importing from the United States. This is an important consideration and one that, I am sure, will appeal to the intelligence of the government when they are discussing their policy upon this subject.
I wish now to point out the very large quantity of certain fruits that are being imported into Canada under the free list. For instance, I find that in 1893 we imported into Canada 430,240 bunches of bananas, while, last year, 1903, we imported 942,443 bunches, or an increase in ten years in the importation of bananas alone of 512,203 bunches. To show how rapidly the consumption of this fruit is increasing in Canada I may point out that the importation in 1902 was 705.707 bunches. Thus, with an importation of 942,443 bunches last year, we find that in one year there has been an increase in this import of 176.076 bunches. Then I take the item of pineapples. In 1893. we imported 010,031, while in 1903, we imported 1,375,220. In 1902 our importation of pineapples was 1,095,949, so that there was an increase last year of 279.277. I do not wish to be misunderstood on this question. We have no special complaint at this moment with respect to the importation of these articles. These articles, as is well understood, are not grown in Canada.


Mahlon K. Cowan: Hear, hear.


Richard Blain: My hon. friend from South Essex (Mr. Cowan) says ' hear, hear.' I thought they could grow almost anything in his beautiful country.


Mahlon K. Cowan: Pretty near, but not bananas or pineapples.


Richard Blain: I do not say that the farmers or market-gardeners have any complaint on this question, but I do say that the great free list in our customs law will require cautious consideration at the hands of the government in the near future. These fruits being allowed to come into Canada free are taking the place of fruits which we can produce in Canada and which would be just as suitable for the consumption of the Canadian people. On this question of the free list I wish to give further illustration. We imported into Canada last year $1,376,537 worth of flax seed, and of that large quantity no less than $1,303,758 came from the United States. A fair question to ask would be :	What is the duty on Canadian
flax seed when it seeks admission to the United States ?
The answer is 23 cents a bushel, but when the American farmer seeks a market in Canada for his flax seed it is allowed in free of duty, because this article is on the free list. I have an extract from the 'Citizen,' dated 1903, which reads as follows :

London, March 19.-Mr. Dickson, a prominent linen manufacturer, Leeds, says, after visiting Edmonton district, that nowhere except in Belgium can there he found conditions of soil more favourable to growing flax. He intends to take out his own machinery and erect a mill there this spring.
That shows you, Mr. Speaker, that there are favourable conditions in the Northwest Territories for the production of flaxseed. That is an article of which we Imported last year $1,376,53? worth. I wish to draw the attention of the government to the fact that flaxseed is on the free list and 1 do not think that it is in the interests of our farmers, when we consider that we have so many million acres of land in Canada that are now unoccupied. When we have conditions favourable for the production of this article, I do not think it is fair-play to the farmers and people of Canada that this article should be on the free list, when we import during the twelve months of last year flaxseed to the value I have named. Now, I wish to point out some other products of the farm that require better protection by this government. The duty on butter going to the United States is 6 cents a pound, the Cana dian duty is 4 cents a pound. On cheese the United States duty is 6 cents a pound, and the Canadian duty is 3 cents a pound. On eggs the United States duty is 5 cents per dozen, and the Canadian duty 3 cents per dozen. The question arises : How does that affect the Canadian farmer and producer of these articles ? I will give you a few facts, Mr. Speaker. Here is a table of our imports for home consumption from the United States, in the year ending the 30th of June, 1903, of the articles I have named :
Article. '	Quantity. Value.
Butter	
505,113	lbs. $137,654Cheese	
179,479	lbs. 30,401Eggs	
534,485	doz. 121,262
Or a total importation under this onesided tariff last year of $289,317. Now, how much of these products did we send to the United States ? Last year we exported to that country of the produce of Canada :
Article.	Quantity.	Value.Butter	
50,745 lbs	$10,225Cheese	56,676 lbs. 7,779Eggs.,. .,	
46,773 doz.	6,436
In those three items we exported to the United States $24,440, and we imported from the United States in the same year $289,317. showing a balance in favour of the United States farmer of $264,877, in consequence of that one-sided tariff. I think the right hon. gentleman and his government should do something for the better protection of the farmers who are producing these articles. My hon. friend from the county of Halton (Mr. Henderson), two or three years ago. in the course of his speech in the budget debate, gave a very important illustration of the condition of the pork industry in Canada when we had no tariff and after the tar-
1281 .
iff was put on by the Liberal-Conservative government. Our tariff on pork coming into Canada is 2 cents per pound, the United States tariff is 5 cents per pound, more than double. 1 want to show how this tariff works out. We imported for home consumption from the United States in the year endng June 30, 1903,
Bacon, ham, shoulders and sides $410,200
Pork barrelled in brine	 497,279
or a total in these two items of $907,479. We exported to the United States, in the same year,
Bacon, ham, shoulders and sides. $1,223
Pork barrelled in brine	 8,631
or a total of $9,854. In other words, we imported into Canada of these items last year $907,479 worth and we exported $9,854 worth, or a total in favour of the United States farmer, as against the Canadian farmer, of $897,625 in one year.


Mr. ALEX. JOHNSTON.: Would the hon. gentleman give the figures showing the total exports of Canada into the United States and the total imports ?


Richard Blain: I do not wish to be unkind to my hon. friend, but I want to say that I have been particularly careful that my remarks should be directed exclusively to this one question we have up for consideration. When the budget is brought down next week, he will have an opportunity of listening to still larger figures, and I am quite sure if my hon. friend can be convinced he will be convinced that we are (importing altogether too much of every class of goods into this country under this one-sided tariff. Now, I want for a moment to point out how trade is drifting in Canada during the last few years. In 1868 we imported for home consumption from Great Britain, $36,663,695 ; we imported from the United States that same year, $26,315,052. In other words, we imported from Great Britain $10,348,643 more than we did from the United States. But after seven years of our national life had passed away, in 1876, the tables were turned against Great Britain in favour of the United States. In 1876 we imported from Great Britain $40,734,260, and from the United States $46,070,033, showing a balance in favour of the United States in that year of $5,335,773 Ten years more of our national life go by, and in 1886 we imported from Great Britain $40,601,199 and from the United States $44.858,039, showing a balance in favour of the United States of $4,256,840. In 1896 we imported from Great Britain $32,979,742 and from the United States $58,575,024, showing a balance in favour of the United States for that year of $25,594,282. In 1903, the last year of which we have" a complete record, we imported from Great Britain $5S,896,901 and from the "United States $137,605,195, showing a balance in favour of the United States of $78,708,294.

Increase with Great Britain	$ 22,233,206
increase with United States	 111,290,143
Thus you will see, Mr. Speaker, that our trade is gradually leaving Great Britain and drifting to the United States, and I wish to point out to the right hon. gentleman and his government the fact that one of the reasons, in my humble opinion, is because of the one-sided tariff, the low tariff we have in this country as against the very high tariff that is imposed on our products going into the United States. Some hon. gentlemen will say that our climate is so much against the products of the farm and orchard that we cannot always supply our Canadian market. In no year do the farm products of this country altogether fail in every part of Canada. If we cannot supply the fruit in Ontario, then it can be supplied by the province of Quebec or the maritime provinces. If we cannot supply it in eastern Canada at all, no doubt the time will come when we can produce a very large quantity of it in Manitoba and the Northwest Territories, and I am quite sure a considerable portion can be produced in British Columbia. Indeed it is said a very considerable portion of the smaller fruits can be produced in the Yukon district.
I am not going to discuss that now, further than to say that if there is a failure of, for instance, the apple crop in Ontario and there is a good appie crop in other provinces of the Dominion of Canada, then the people in Ontario are sufficiently loyal to bring in their apples from the other provinces of the Dominion rather than to bring them from the United States. The same thing will apply to every other article of produce, pork and every other thing.
The hon. gentleman who to-night occupies the position of Speaker (Mr. Campbell) made some little complaint last year and I wish to refer to what he then said. He dealt at length with the fact that the hon. member for Laval (Mr. Leonard) had waited until the budget was brought down before he moved his resolution. My hon. friend made this statement:
I am still in hopes that the tariff will be increased on these articles. I am not going to give up yet ; I am going to continue, and I warn the Finance Minister now that I shall he after him again and again. But so far as I am concerned I am not going to vote for the hon. gentleman's motion.
The hon. member for West York (Mr. Campbell) spoke in this way, but I shall not pursue that further as the hon. gentleman is now in the chair. I will say, however, that the government have complained in former years during this parliament that we have waited until the budget was brought down before we introduced resolutions of this kind calling for a te-vision of the tariff. I may say to the right hon. gentleman (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) and his government that we have brought down Mr. BLAIN.
i
the resolution now and that it is a notice not of to-day, but a notice of many years' standing, a notice introduced in this parliament either before or after the budget year after year by the Liberal-Conservative party. That party are prepared vo give our hearty support to the right hon. gentleman and his government in order that a better protection shall be given to the farmers and market-gardeners of this country. When the right hon. gentleman and his colleagues are considering this question-and I presume they are considering it because I was present at a deputation which waited on the hon, the Finance Minister and his colleagues three years ago, and the government held out such hopes to the farmers and market-gardeners that they left Ottawa feeling that, possibly before they got home, the tariff would be revised and everything made right. But three years have passed away and now we are in the fourth session of this parliament. This government came into power in 1890 with a very large majority at their back. A very large majority of the electors of this country supported the right hon. gentleman and his party at the polls so that they had a free hand in tariff as well as other matters and thfcv stood in a unique position, a position such as the Conservative party never found themselves in when revising tariff. The right hon. gentleman is assured of the support of the hon. the leader of the opposition (Mr. R. L. Borden) and his supporters not only in voice, but in votes recorded in this House on resolutions such as I have read to the House this evening. Therefore, I say that no government has had a better opportunity of correcting this great evil than this government. If ever a government has had fair warning, that warning has been given to the right hon. gentleman and his friends. They have been warned on the floor of this House, newspapers have brought the government's attention to this condition of: things, resolutions by farmers' and market-gardeners' associations have been presented to them, speeches have been made on the subject in this House, resolutions have been voted for, and every possible notice has, been given to this government that they have the support of the Conservative party of this country in attempting to revise the tariff and to make it adequate to meet the wants of the people of Canada, and equal to what is necessary in the interests >
of the farming community of this country who are great contributors to the taxes and who should have a considerable amount of attention from the right hon. gentleman and his government.


Wilfrid Laurier: The government has certainly no reason to complain of the manner in which my hon. friend (Mr. Blain) has introduced this matter to the attention of the House. The subject

is not altogether new, and is one on which we have long known the hon. gentleman feels very strongly. If my hon. friend intended simply to give warning to the government, I am sure he has duly done his duty in that regard. My hon. friend (Mr. Blain) is aware that on Tuesday next the budget speech will be delivered, and therefore he will not be surprised if I tell him that at this moment the government cannot accept his motion. The subject, as my hon. friend says, is under the consideration of the government. It has been more than once brought to their attention, but the budget speech will be delivered on Tuesday as I have said, and then we will know what the policy of the government is. Therefore, Sir. as I said, the hon. gentleman will not be surprised if the government do not feel justified in accepting the motion he has placed in your hands.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: My hon. friend from Peel (Mr. Blain) has gone so fully into this matter that I merely wish to add a few words, because the constituency which I have the honour to represent, and several other constituencies lying - in the vicinity of Montreal, are interested to a very large degree in the question which has been raised by the hon. member for Peel. I shall not go over the figures which have been so carefully grouped by my hon. friend ; they appear in the returns which have been brought down from time to time, but I may say that as he gave them to the House I followed him from these returns, and I found them absolutely correct. The conclusion to which even a superficial examination of these returns inevitably leads is that the importation of garden produce from the United States is increasing gradually from year to year since 1S96, having begun shortly before that time. It has increased steadily and it presses greatly upon important centres in Canada, like Toronto and Montreal, particularly from January to July in every year. From the last returns for which I moved at the beginning of this session that clearly appears. The Americans have an absolute advantage in our markets during the months that might be most profitable to our market-gardeners.
In the months of March, April, May and June, the United States market-gardeners have their harvest. They send their goods in here, and when later in the season our market-gardeners have their products ready for sale, they are prohibited by a high duty from sending them to the United States. Carefully prepared statistics show that of garden products and agricultural products generally, we export to the United States to the equivalent of 10 per cent a head of our population, while we import these products from the United States to the extent of $2.90 cents per head of our population. I was somewhat surprised and at the same
time amused, to hear the Prime Minister state that he could not adopt this amendment because the budget had not yet been brought down ; for I remember that when a similar motion was made by my hon. friend (Mr. Leonard) some years ago after the budget speech had been delivered, the tight hon. gentleman's complaint then was that the motion should have been made before the budget speech. I suppose there is no use bothering about the Prime Minister's inconsistency in such a matter. The truth is, that the Prime Minister, his government, and his party have not seriously considered the urgent representations which have been placed before them for the last ten years by the market-gardeners of Canada. The market-gardeners have organized to give their representations strength ; they have sent petitions to the government which were not marked confidential, but which were entitled to no less consideration on that account ; they came to the government in deputation both from Ontario and Quebec, but no heed has been paid to them by the government. I remember, Mr. Speaker, (Mr. Campbell) when you yourself piloted a large deputation of market-gardeners to interview the ministers, and you seemed to be entirely favourable to the claims that were put forward by the gentlemen you accompanied. I am sure it is only the bitter irony of fate that has placed you in the chair to-night, and prevented you from supporting by your voice, and voting as you no doubt would in favour of this amendment. I respectfully point out to the Prime Minister, that the protection which market-gardeners receive on their industry amounts to two per cent only, whereas other industries are protected to a much greater extent. The market-gardeners pay a duty of from twenty-five to thirty-five per cent on everything they consume, but their own industry receives virtually no protection at nil. The industry for which we now plead is not a small industry. We have gone to the trouble of compiling statistics in Jacques Cartier county, and we have found that in that county over a quarter million dollars is invested in the industry, and that there are
2.000	people whose means of livelihood it is. Mr. Legare, leading member of the market-gardeners association, in the province of Quebec, demonstrated to the government when he appeared before it here with a deputation, that if the industry were protected to a reasonable degree it would afford a means of livelihood for not
2.000	but for 6.000 people. On one occasion when a deputation appeared before the government the objection was taken that the consumers should be considered, but it was clearly proved that the consumer does not get these vegetables any cheaper than if he purchased those of native growth. It was shown that on the island of Montreal there could be cultivated at all seasops of

tlie year, tomatoes, beans, celery, lettuce, parsley, onions, cucumbers, cauliflowers, watercress, spinach, green pease, and all those vegetables that come from the United States. It was established that we could not only furnish all the wants of the people of Montreal, but furnish them at a lower price and of better quality. The vegetables sent to us from the United States are what are left over on the markets of Boston and New York, and which are ten or twelve or fifteen days old when they reach here. They are sent in train lohds of twelve or thirteen cars at a time. The importation is increasing from year to year, because while previous to 1897 they were only brought by express, they are now brought in refrigerator cars at less cost, and are consequently sold cheaper. They are valued by the customs at comparatively nothing, pay a very low ad valorem duty and are sold at high prices. The consumer gains no advantage in the matter of price, and he gets vegetables of a quality inferior to the native product. Most of these imported vegetables are grown in the southern states where they are cultivated by coloured and Chinese labour.
Under these circumstances, competition by our own market-gardeners is almost impossible. I said a moment ago that as a general rule the duties scarcely amounted to more than 2 per cent. Take as an example celery, which formerly was very much cultivated around Montreal, and was sold at every period of the winter. The cultivation of celery has now very largely been abandoned, because it conies to us in such large quantities from California. It is sold there at from 10 cents to 15 cents a dozen. It pays a duty of 20 per cent ad valorem, or 2 cents or 3 cents a dozen, and it is sold in Montreal at from 75 cents to $1 a dozen. The same thing applies to very large quantities of cu-umbers, tomatoes, cabbages, green pease and beans, spinach and lettuce. We are in a position in the county of Jacques Cartier to furnish lettuce for the city of Montreal all the winter, and our competitors are the American exporters, who send up large quantities of an inferior article, and who are in a position to sell it at a considerable price on the market of Montreal ; but they flood our market, and are in a position to sacrifice that product, and they do a great deal of injury to our gardeners. Last year, for instance, -when the market in Montreal in the early spring was normal, tomatoes were at a reasonable price, and a great many were being brought into the city of Montreal from the county of Jacques Cartier, when one morning over twelve carloads of tomatoes arrived from the United States and were thrown on the market, disturbing the market and ruining the prospect of our market-gardeners for a just and legitimate profit during more than ten days.
Now, Mr. Speaker, what has been asked of the government ? The association in the pro-Mr. MONK.
vince of Ontario has deliberated ; the association in the province of Quebec has held counsel ; and, strange to say, before they even conferred together, they came to exactly the same conclusion, and I submit that that conclusion is a reasonable one. They do not ask for a higher tariff than that w-hich the Americans have against us ; but they have come to the conclusion that in the interest of their industry it is necessary that they should have against the American market-gardeners the same protection which the United States have against us, and that is what they ask from the government. It seems to me that that demand is reasonable and just; it has been properly urged before the government, and this is the occasion for the government to take up the matter. If it is impossible for the Minister of Agriculture himself to investigate it or for the Minister of Customs to look into it. let the government have recourse to its usual method of naming a commission to investigate the truth of the allegations contained in the petitions which have been so often brought to the notice of the government. These people, after waiting for seven years, and after having, on each occasion that they have come here to make their representations to the government, received the assurance that their just complaints would be looked into and if possible remedied, have not made much progress, and it is the duty of the government without further delay to do justice to their claims. It was suggested on one occasion to the Minister of Finance that we might adopt a sliding scale of duties which would not interfere with the legitimate business of our market-gardeners during the first six months of the year, and that suggestion seemed to be acceptable to a certain extent to the Minister of Finance. If the government is not disposed to treat the American producers as they treat our producers in this particular line of business, it might at least make a trial of that sliding scale, which would protect our market-gardeners during the season of the year when they might possibly expect to derive some profit from a legitimate industry which is deserving of every encouragement from the government.
Mr. 0. B. HEYD (South Brant). Mr. Speaker, if the hon. gentleman who introduced this resolution had not connected the farmers with it, I would not have risen to make any observations upon it. So far as the products of the market-gardeners are concerned, if the duty were put upon them, there would be one comfort, that it would fall mainly on the rich. But as the hon. gentleman has included the farmers as being petitioners for increased duties, it would be just as well ito see what the result would be to the farmers of this country if the desires of the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Blain) were carried out. The hon. gentleman stated that we imported more butter from the United

States than we export to that country. That is quite immaterial to me. The question is. how much does the importation of butter from the United States injure the fanners of Canada ? When we look at the figures which I have very hurriedly prepared, we find that last year we imported 658.000 pounds of butter, while in 1901 we produced 141,000,000 pounds. Under these circumstances, how much injufy the importation of 058,000 pounds of butter, probably into British Columbia or some of the Northwest Territories, fardistant from our own great producing centres, would do to the farmers of this country, I cannot really see. When you think of 658,000 pounds imported and 141,000,000 pounds made, each man can figure for himself how much a duty on butter would benefit the farmer. Take cheese : last year our imports of cheese were 269.000 pounds, and our exports to England alone were 229.000000 pounds. How much good would an increased duty on cheese do the farmers of Canada ? Take eggs :	we imported las*
year 772,000 dozen, but the product of Canada was 84,000,000 dozen. How' much harm is being done to the farmers of Canada by the importation of those eggs ? When the hon. gentleman alluded to potatoes, I asked him whether yams were included. He said it w7as Irish potatoes he alluded to. Well, last year we imported 407,000 bushels of potatoes, w'hile we produced 55,000,000 bushels in Canada.
We imported 407,000 bushels while we produced 55,000,000. How much injury is the farmer suffering from that import ? Take the question of hay. we imported 7,000 tons last year and produced 8.000.000 tons. Of wheat we imported 84,000 bushels while our production amounted to 93,000.000 bushels. Our imports of oats were 100,000 bushels last year and our product 151,000,000 bushels. Of barley wre imported none, and grew 34,000.000 bushels. Then in the case of apples, while our imports amounted to but 81,000 bushels, the products of our orchards reached the figures of 48,000.000. How could it possibly conduce to the welfare of the farmers to increase the duties upon these articles, w'hieh do not come at all into competition with wbat they raise ? We export more than we import, and the small quantity we do import does not come into competition with the produce of our own farmers. I would not have alluded to this were it not that my hon. friend included the farmers in his resolution. Of pineapples we purchased $127,000 worth. Of bananas-


Richard Blain: I am sure my hon. friend does not wish to misinterpret my remarks. I did not say that the resolution asked for a duty on pineapples or bananas, but I distinctly said that these were on the free list but would have to be considered by the government at some future day.


Charles Bernhard Heyd: Of course the condition of the artisans of Canada is so prosperous today that they can afford to eat pineapples, bananas, oranges and other luxuries of that kind. They eat pineapples to the extent of $127,000 worth, bananas to the extent of $819,000 worth, and oranges and lemons to the extent of $1,000,000 worth. What the object of the hon. gentleman was in introducing these articles into his speech at all I cannot conceive, unless it were to show that our people are consuming too many luxuries in this period of good times, and that* we must by some means put a stop to that consumption and compel them to eat more dried apples. It was said once by some English statesman that the people of England would be more prosperous if they ate less. On the same principle, our friend thinks that our people would be more prosperous if they were prevented from eating pineapples', bananas and orangess. But my hon. friend from Essex (Mr. Cowan) says these fruits are not grown up there, and what they cannot grow in Essex you cannot grow anywhere else in Canada. The tax upon oranges, pineapples and bananas, therefore, would be a tax on the consumer and for whose benefit ? It could not be for the benefit of the farmers or market-gardeners, for they do not grow these fruits.
I am quite willing to admit that a few men in Canada who engage in the market-gardening business would benefit by having their interests protected to a certain extent, but it is a large question whether the great body of consumers should be subjected to a tax of that kind for the benefit of a few. Personally I have no objection when the tpx falls" on the rich, but bananas and oranges are sold so low that even the poorest of our people can buy them. The banana is a wholesome food, bought principally by the poorer classes, as I can state from my personal knowledge, being in the business of selling these articles myself.
I do not think that my hon. friend has strengthened his case by including these articles in his list or by trying to show that our farmers are injured by an importation of farm products, when the relative quantity of that import, compared with our own production, is represented by one to a thousand. Just imagine the harm that is done our farmers by 531.000 pounds of imported butter coming into competition with 141,000,000 pounds,; which they produce, and by the importation of $50,000 worth of cheese. And what kind of cheese ? Stilton, Roquefort, Swiss, and I suppose even Lim-burger. And these cheeses, which are regarded as luxuries and found upon the tables of the principal hotels and of the rich, are supposed to come into competition with our cheese industry, which exports to Great Britain 229,000,000 pounds, besides giving an abundant supply to 6,000,000 of our own people. The whole thing is absurd, and I trust the House will vote down this resolution.


Robert Johnston: I was rather surprised, Mr. Speaker, to hear the speech we have just had from the hon. gentleman who has just taken Ms seat, and who last year wanted more protection on a manufacturing industry situated in the city from which he comes. But while he is quite prepared to stand up for protection for a particular industry in which he is interested, he is quite ready to vote down a motion which, asks for protection to the produce of our farms. The argument he lias advanced furnishes proof positive that our farmers require protection, because to the extent that farm products are brought in from the United States, to that extent must our farmers seek a far-off market for what stuff they grow.


Charles Bernhard Heyd: Tell us how you can protect cheese.


Robert Johnston: We can protect it to the extent that cheese comes in from the United States to this country. You may import Limburger cheese or anything else, our Canadian cheese is quite good enough for our Canadian people. The hon. gentleman went on to show how many potatoes were imported and how many we could not use, but just to the amount of foreign potatoes brought into this country must be consumed here, does this foreign product drive our own to a distant foreign market ? That operates in the same way as bringing in free corn displaces so much of the coarse grains as would be consumed on our farms. These hon. gentlemen talk about our not producing sufficient market-garden stuff iq the Dominion, but they do not give fair play to our market-gardeners to produce anything like what they would if they had sufficient tariff protection. They could produce many months earlier than they do now. because they could afford to build hot houses to a greater extent. At present it is not worth a market-gardener's while to go into a big speculation by building hot houses and glass houses in order to supply this country with early vegetables when the Americans are charged so small a tariff on the products they send in. If the tariff were high enough to shut out the imported stuff, our market-gardeners could grow a great deal more and during many more months. When the sugar beet growers of Ontano waited on this government and asked for a protection or a bounty on the glowing of sugar beets they could not get a bounty, but the government proposed instead to give a bounty to the manufacturers of the beet root sugar and let them fix the price to the farmers. I cannot see why the farmers should not be protected as well as the manufacturers. The hon. member for Brantford (Mr. Heyd) was anxious that the binder twine business should be given a bounty, but I do not think that he would have urged such a policy if there were not a binder twine factory in his town. I am Mr. HEYD.
in favour of giving the farmer the same fair-play that you ask for the manufacturers. I remember the late Minister of Public Works (Mr. Tarte) giving a protectionist speech at South Ontario, and I wrell remember the Reformers clapping their hands "'hen he spoke of protection for the farmers and manufacturers of Oshawa. And he almost goes over the same speech he made in Oshawa, and the very ones who applauded him there hiss him in this House. If it was a good thing to give bounties on steel, on lead, on lumber and other things, why do you refuse to give a bounty on sugar beets, when these are grown by our own farmers ? Every hundredweight of vegetables brought into Canada displaces Canadian-grown stuff, and injures the Canadian farmer by compelling him to seek a foreign market and to accept the lower price that is offered when it reaches that market, instead of the price that should be got for the product fresh and perfect for use in the home market. There is no argument in favour of a bounty to a factory in the town of the last speaker (Mr. Heyd) that would not be equally strong in favour of bounties to the farmers, who are the back bone of this country. If we use American farm products, that means that a certain quantity of our own products must be sent to the old country for sale. And in this the American gains the benefit, because our market, in which the American sells his stuff, is comparatively near, while the market in which our people must sell is distant. I hope, not from a party standpoint, that the farmers and market-gardeners of this country will be given as good protection as the manufacturers. But you cannot give protection, even to the manufacturers, without benefiting the farmers,, because the farmers will get the benefit from the sale of their goods in the nearer market created by the presence of the workers in the fac tories.


Rodolphe Lemieux: This question of protection to the farmers and market-gardeners did not come up from the time when I first had the honour of a seat in this House, in 1896, until the session of 1902. The question was then raised by my hon. friend from Laval (Mr. Leonard). That hon. gentleman had been elected in 1902, and I must say that this question of higher duties in favour of the farmers was one of the issues in the cam paign which was carried on in his county. He brought up the question in this House, and was seconded in his efforts by the hon! member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk), who was then leader of the Conservative party in the province of Quebec. I well remember the speeches of both these gentlemen during the session of 1902. It ap pears that the hon. member from Jacques Cartier was found deficient in some way by the hon. gentlemen opposite. True, he was

the only one who had carried an election, wlio had gained a victory, in the province or Quebec since the general elections of 1896. But it appears that this year, in the month of March, he was forced out of the leadership by the members of his party, who selected as their leader, the gentleman who is supposed to be the high priest of protection in this country. That gentleman, the hon. member for St. Mary's, (Mr. Tarte), had occasion to speak during the session of 1902, and it will be well, perhaps, to remind the House of the speech he delivered on that occasion, Mark well, Mr. Speaker, he was chosen as the leader of the Conservative party in the province of Quebec because he was the apostle of high protection in this country. And what did he say on this very question in the session of 1902, answering my hon. friend from Jacques Cartier and my hon. friend from Laval, who had used at that time the same arguments which we have heard in support of the resolution now before the House ' The hon. gentleman (Mr. Tarte) was then Minister of Public Works. Speaking on April 28th, 1902, he said :
My hon. friend wants us to raise the duties upon lettuce, cucumbers, tomatoes, asparagus, I celery, beets, onions, &c. It is well known that in the winter months we do not grow cabbages nor cucumbers. We are also aware that it is extremely difficult to raise tomatoes in the winter season. We had to pay, last winter, 50 cents a pound for tomatoes of Canadian growth, whilst American tomatoes were being sold on the Montreal market at 20 cents a pound.
Remember, this is the apostle of high protection who speaks. Further on he says :
It is idle to appeal to prejudices. There are enough people buying tomatoes and lettuce, for let it be known that I am speaking the plain unvarnished truth. Cauliflowers are not grown in the winter months in Canada. I agree that during a certain season of the year they can be kept, perhaps during two or three months. The cauliflowers we buy in the winter are imported from the United States.
In short I believe that what the hon. gentleman is aiming at is to make political capital with the electors and to catch popular favour rather than appealing to their reason. Let my hon. friend allow me in all due deference, to call his attention to the fact that in the province of Quebec, as elsewhere, farmers have a great deal of common sense. Go through the county of Laval and ask the market-gardeners if thpy can produce cucumbers, celery, tomatoes and cauliflowers in the winter months, and they will tell you that they cannot do so.
Further on, answering the hon. member for Laval, the Minister of Public Works of that day used the following language :
My hon. friend knows very well that, even if additional duties were imposed on pease, tomatoes. cucumbers and other vegetables, that would neither improve the climate nor enable us to grow those vegetables to advantage during the winter months. The increase in the duties asked for by my hon. friend would only
result in forcing the consumer to pay more for those products, w'ithout improving the condition of the Canadian producer. To my mind, such a proposition is preposterous.
This is the language of the high priest of protection in this Dominion. I might say that, even after my hon. and distinguished friend from Jacques Cartier had fought the battle in the county of Laval, where this question of high protection for market gardeners had been made a live issue, he was deposed as leader and replaced by the hon. gentleman from St. Mary's (Mr. Tarte). And here we have Mr. T-arte's own words against the very proposition which is now under discussion on the motion of the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Blain). For my part, I hold that the hon. member for St. Mary's spoke on that occasion, words of wisdom. And I am ready to stand by him during this debate, and to say with him that the farmers and market-gardeners of the Montreal district- and of the GaspS district, too-have a great deal of common sense, and will not be caught by the silly proposition which has been made this evening.


Mr. J. EMILE LEONARD (Laval).: (Translation.) I have listened with pleasure to the views expressed by the hon. Solicitor General concerning the ex-Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Tarte). Two years ago the ex-minister was opposing the doctrine laid down in the amendment which the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Blain) has just presented, but since he has grown older and come to the conclusion, or rather he is convinced, that we should concede the fair demands of the people of Laval and several counties submitted to you through the channel of the member now addressing the House. Every one remembers, Mr. Speaker, that he who is just now addressing you was returned in spite of the combined efforts of both the provincial and Dominion governments, at the request and upon the advice of the hon. member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk). Notwithstanding anything which the hon Solicitor General may have said, the hon. member for Jacques Cartier was not deprived of his leadership by the Conservatives in the province of Quebec. If the hon. Solicitor General is not any more familiar with the effect of the present tariff upon market gardening in Canada than he is with the internal administration of the Conservative party in the province of Quebec. I am bound to admit that he does not know much about it.
It is useless for my hon. friend, the Solicitor General, to wax eloquent in order to stir up the Conservatives of the province of Quebec who are of one mind in honouring the hon. member for Jacques Cartier. The Conservatives can dispense with the advice of my hon. friend when selecting the chieftain who is to lead them to victory at the next general election. He is strangely mistaken if he imagines that he can stir up in

our midst strifes altogether unknown in tlie Conservative party.
As to these customs duties, I do not intend to answer the so-called arguments which have just now been brought forward, but speaking as a representative from the district of Montreal, I shall avail myself of this opportunity to state openly that my hon. friend, the member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) was not turned down by the Conservatives of Quebec but that he willingly resigned, actuated by purely personal motives.
My hon. friend the Solicitor General attempted to make merry of the ex-Minister of Public Works because be opposed this amendment in 1902.
I did not rise on my feet to recall what I said two years ago when answering the remarks of the ex-Minister of Public Works. When the hon. member for St. Mary's (Mr. Tarte) rose at that time to oppose the resolution which I had had the honour to introduce in the House, he was not as familiar as he is to-day with the needs of the farmers in the neighbourhood of large cities, and I may say that he has since so stated to me. Having considered the question, he has come to the conclusion propounded by the hon. member for Peel and the hon. gentlemen on this side of the House, viz., that the market gardeners need a larger measure of protection.
I see in ' Hansard,' Mr. Speaker, -(Mr. Campbell), that even yourself you favoured increasing the customs duties on garden truck brought in from abroad, and I am convinced that, were it not for political considerations, and the fear of offending your leader and master, you would give a free vote in favour of the resolution now under consideration.
It is not my intention to repent now what I had occasion to say on this question during the sessions of 1902 and 1903. However, as I have seconded the motion of the hon. member for Peel, all I can say is that the same needs exist to-day. We were told during former sessions when we brought up this question that it was too late. This year it was our desire to remove that ob'ection by springing this question in the early days of the session. Yourself. Mr. Speaker (Mr. Campbell), you took part in the discussion in 1902 and 1903. In 1903, yon told us that it was too early and. in 1903. that it was too late to introduce that resolution.
This year we put the question before the House previous to the budget being brought down. The right hon. leader of the House told us a while ago that we should have waited until the budget speech had been delivered. I considered the suggestion as another attempt to evade the question without settling it one way or the other. I hope that the hon. member for Teel .(Mr. Plain) will press this motion to the end. so that if the government should decide to move in the matter, they may rely on the vote that will be g'ven to-night.


Joseph-Édouard-Émile Léonard: Without going into details, I may say that what the gardeners are asking for, is a specific duty, because the present tariff with its ad valorem duty opens the door to too many fraudulent devices on the part of the importers of foreign fruits.
I would not feel disposed to make any charges against the custom officers, but it is a w'ell known fact, at least among the buyers in Montreal, that these officers whose duty it is to examine all the vegetables coming from abroad, admit all those from the United States as damaged goods, even if they are in prime condition ; in that way the American exporters can flood the Canadian market to the detriment of the home producers who are not in a position to compete successfully.
Before concluding, I must say that gardeners from the counties around Montreal, as well as those from the counties surrounding our large cities, as Toronto and others, would be satisfied if the government decided to put on all the articles enumerated in this resolution, the same duty as is exacted by our American neighbours on the same articles.
I hope. Mr. Speaker, after the speech of the right hon. first minister, that we will succeed in our exertions to obtain a revision of the tariff to the advantage of the gardeners of this country. I flatter myself that my efforts in that direction have not been in vain, and that my election as a member of this Hbuse will not have been without some weight, when the government comes to the decision of increasing the duty on the market garden products.


Mr. L. P. DEMERS (St. John and Iberville).: (Translation.) Mr. Speaker, I think the opportunity is well chosen to say a few words on the circumstances which attended the election of the hon. member for Laval. At the time he was a candidate in Laval county, another election was being held in the St. James Division of Montreal, and (he Conservative speakers were very careful not to mention that question. Yet, we are told to-night that the election in Laval county was fought on these liiffes.


Joseph-Édouard-Émile Léonard: (Translation.) That is the same objection which was raised at the time by the ex-Minister of Public Works (Mr. Tarte).


Louis Philippe Demers: (Translation.) My hon. friend is greatly mistaken if lie supposes that he has been elected on that fiscal issue. The tariff does not electrify the masses ; this proposition has been put forward by the hon. member for Jacques Cartier, his chief- if he has still a claim to that distinction-in a speech that was reported in ' La Presse ' of the 1st March, 1904, in which speech he is credited with these words : ' Can the masses enthuse over the tariff ? '
Several circumstances contributed to the result of that election in Laval county : two

Liberal candidates were in the field, and the outcome was a split among our friends, and then there was the natural flow of sympathy for a man of the county as against an outsider.
It seems to me that the hon. gentlemen opposite have failed to make out their case. They have not proved that the American products are slaughtered on our markets ; they have not established that the gardening industry is not prosperous in this country. It is my good fortune, Mr. Speaker, to be professionally in touch with the gardeners of the surrounding counties of Montreal and I know personally that there is not a more prosperious class in this country.


Mr DAVID HENDERSON (Halton).: I am sure the House is deeply indebted to the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Blain) for again introducing a subject which is as much a live question to-day as it was on the former occasion when it was brought to the attention of the House. In my opinion the home market of Canada, to the agriculturist, the market-gardener, the producer of fruits and vegetables, as well as all the other commodities produced on the farm, is the very best asset he has. It is of more value to him than all the other markets of the world, because it consumes from 80 to 90 per cent of the entire products of the farm. I say therefore it is of the utmost importance that the home market should be guarded by every legitimate means this government can employ for preserving to the people of this country such a valuable asset. If a foreign nation were to invade our shores I have no doubt the Minister of Militia and Defence, whom I am glad to see in his place, would at once call upon all the forces at his command to drive back the enemy and to prevent the invasion. Now I believe it is just as legitimate, just as proper that the Finance Minister of this country should use the tariff of which he has the making for the purpose of preventing an invasion of our country by the surplus products of the United States and other countries. I say the one is just as legitimate as the other, and no one for a moment, not even yourself, Mr. Speaker, would object to the Minister of Militia using all the means in his power to prevent a territorial invasion of our country by a foreign enemy. Surely the invasion of our market by the surplus products of foreign countries is just as injurious; and therefore you. Sir, should join us, and I trust you will join us on this occasion, in supporting the resolution moved by my hon. friend from Peel, and give better protection to the home market of Canada for the products of our farms.
For 25 years this policy has been the declared policy of Canada. In 1878 the national policy was brought down, and then it was declared to be the policy of this country to protect the agricultural products of Canada. It is ti-ue that a portion of that
protection has been removed. I regret very much that in the tariff of 1897 the hon. gentlemen now in power so far forgot their duty to the agriculturists of this country as to reduce the duties on important products of the farm ; and I regret as well that coming in under changed conditions, changed circumstances, when larger protection to the agricultural products of the country was necessary, they did not see fit to grant to that class that fair share of national care to which their position, their wealth and their numbers fairly entitle them.	,	,
My intention to-night, Mr. Speaker, is to advert more particularly to the growth of small fruits ; the matter of vegetables has been referred to by others. Permit me first to make a brief reference to some remarks that fell from the hon. member for Brant (Mr. Heyd). He seemed to try to laugh away the idea of protecting the farmer on his butter, his cheese and his pork, simply because the importations of butter, cheese and pork were comparatively small compared with the entire production of the country. Now, I want for a moment or two to show that hon. gentleman that this is not a matter that can be laughed away. The farmers of this country are deeply interested in this question, and if the importations of pork from the United States are not large compared with the entire products of Canada in that article, it is no argument why protection should be removed or should not be increased. Take the item of barrel pork alone. Last year, I find we imported 5,637,000 pounds of barrel pork, a very considerable item indeed. But what I want to draw attention to is this fact. We are told that the great market for our bacon and ham is in England, we send the greater part of that portion of our pork to the British market, and we are told that it is no difference whether our market is protected or not because we have a market in England for all the bacon and ham we can produce. But, Mr. Speaker, neither the hon. member for Brant, nor any other gentleman in this House, has been able to find a hog that will cut up entirely into bacon and hams. There are portions of the hog. as the hon. gentleman will understand, of which you cannot make bacon and hams, a portion of the hog for which you cannot find a profitable market in Great Britain. While you can export your bacon and hams, all that we can produce for that matter, you- cannot export certain other portions of the hog. You cannot, for example, find in England a market for all our lard ; our pork packers cannot find a market in England for the shoulders, for the spare ribs and for other portions of the hog, backs and so forth-yes, and the heads and feet. These portions of the hog cannot be profitably exported to Great Britain and must be sold in Canada. Now, Sir, if we allow our market to be invaded by

American pork to such an extent that it will prevent our pork packers from finding a market for the unexportable part of the hog, what are our pork packers to do ? They have simply to do one of two things. Notwithstanding that they have a market in Britain for all their bacon and ham, if they cannot find a market in Canada for the unexportable part of the hog they simply have to reduce the price of live hogs to the farmer or stop their business. Now in 1902 there were more hogs slaughtered in the province of Ontario than in any previous year. What was the result? There was so much of the unexportable part of the hog thrown upon the market in addition to what came in from the United States, that the home market could not consume them, and we had not a profitable market abroad for such. The result was that the pork packers of this country had to reduce the price to the farmers very materially indeed. That will be the result. We can find a market, as I said before, for our bacon and ham, all we can produce, but we must guard the market of Canada as regards that portion of the animal, which we cannot export to the old country. Therefore, I say that to laugh at the idea of a duty on pork being necessary because only a small amount is being imported, is not treating the question with that sincerity to which it is entitled.
Now, Sir, with reference to the small fruit production I desire to say a few words.
1 think, Mr. Speaker, (Mr. Campbell) you are authority for the statement made a year ago that some 4,000 people in the neighbourhood of the city of Toronto were employed in the production of garden stuff. We have it stated here to-night by the hon. member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) that some 2,000 people are employed in his own county. Now I would not undertake to say how many people are employed in the county I have the honour to represent, in the production of small fruit, but I know it is a very large number indeed, men, women and children, who are engaged in growing, gathering and marketing small fruit. It is an industry of considerable importance, an industry in which a very considerable amount of capital is invested. The land on which these small fruits are grown is very valuable, is worth hundreds and hundreds of dollars per acre. No land suitable for that purpose can he bought at a cheap price.
As I said before, a very considerable number of people are employed and these people are entitled to consideration at the hands of the government in having a market provided for their product at their door. Small fruits such as raspberries and strawberries cannot be exported to Great Britain ; practically they cannot be exported to the United States, because the people of the United States produce the same fruits in large quantities and have a tariff against our fruits which guards their market. I say therefore that we are Mr. HENDERSON.
entitled to the paternal care of the government so that we can retain the market that we have in our own country for these perishable products. I am aware that when I advance an idea of this kind I shall be met with the stock argument- and I think it has been thrown across the floor to-night-that if you put an increased duty on these green fruits you will enhance the price to the consumer. Suppose it does enhance the price to the consumer, who is going to be benefited by it ? The farmer, the man we want to help. Is it any harm to help the farmer to make more profits out of his farm so long as you do not hurt any one else ? But with a proper readjustment of the tariff there is no reason why the consumer should be hurt because we can protect the consumer at the same time that we protect the producer. We can protect the producer by increasing the duty on small fruits coming into this country and keeping out foreign fruit, so as to give the gardener and the farmer of Canada who produce the small fruits a larger and better market for their products. On the other hand you can, by a readjustment of the tariff, protect the man who consumes fruit in another way. Reference was made to the importation of dried fruits. We import very largely into this country, currants, raisins and prunes. The prunes come chiefly from California, raisins come from Spain as well as from California, and currants largely from Greece. We do not produce any of these articles in this country. We might put a duty of five hundred per cent on these articles, but you could not protect the industry in this country. A duty put on these dried fruits is not for the purpose of protection, but for revenue purposes, and revenue purposes only. Now let us simply readjust the tariff on fruits ; let us reduce the duty on the dried fruits and increase it on the green, and what is the result ? The result would be that the farmer in Canada who produces the strawberries, raspberries, currants and grapes would get a larger market and a better price for his products and when any family wants to buy groceries, their raisins, currants, prunes, and other dry fruits of which they would buy more pounds per year than of green fruits, they would get them at a much reduced price, because the duty would be lower. Thus there is no reason with the readjustment of the tariff, why any one would be hurt. But there is a strong probability that a very deserving class in this community would be helped. Therefore, I say, if the Minister of Finance wants to help the farmers of this country he has an opportunity of doing so without hurting the consumers or causing any families to pay a larger price for the fruits they consume during the whole year. The answer of the Finance Minister is : Our policy is a policy of tariff for revenue only,
(

we cannot afford to do that. The Finance Minister will tell us that if he reduces the duty on the dried fruits he will lose the revenue from them and that if he increases the duty on the green fruit, fewer of them would come in and he. would get less revenue. Tlie\ Minister of Finance wants revenue ; he cares nothing for the interest of the people of this country, he cares not whether the farmers get a proper price for their products or not. No, Sir, that is not the first consideration of the tariff of this government. Their tariff as they have told us is a tariff for revenue only, and it is framed in such a way as will take the greatest amount of taxes out of the people irrespective of what the people's interests are. If the hon. gentleman (Mr. Fielding) would use the same argument with other articles it would simply show how unfair the argument is. Apply the argument to raw sugar, or to nice or an article like foreign leaf tobacco, as well as the articles 1 have given, imported raisins and currants and prunes. In every case a tax on these articles goes to enhance the price. If you put an extra duty on raw sugar you certainly enhance the price. A duty is not placed on raw sugar for purposes of protection ; we make refined sugar, but do not make raw sugar and the higher you put the duty on raw sugar the higher the price to the consumer becomes. The Minister of Finance says that is all right. Tariff for revenue is his policy ; he cares not for the interests of the people of this country, he cares not whether the farmer makes a profit so long as he gets $50,000,000 or $60,000,000 to expend in this country.	The
same thing applies to rice on which he imposes a duty of about sixty-one per cent. You cannot produce rice in this country and a duty placed on rice is simply a tax on the people, and the same thing applies to the other articles I have mentioned.
Readjusting the tariff on the fruits that I have suggested would be a benefit to the farmer, the gardener, the workman and the business man. A larger market would be secured and there would be more employment for labour and, as I said before, if it does enhance the price of goods, no one is hurt because the tariff can be readjusted, so that by levelling it, in reducing the duty on dried fruit and increasing it on green fruit any family can secure the requisite supply of fruits during the whole year at no greater cost, while the producer of fruits in this country will be largely benefited. I do not desire at this late hour to detain the House, but I would like to refer to the large importation of dried and green fruits into this country.
I do not desire to give the matter in detail. but let me say that we imported in 1903 for home consumption in blackberries, raspberries, gooseberries aiyl strawberries alone 1,066,035 pounds, enough to keep a good many gardeners employed.
We imported of cuerries, 146,956 pounds. We imported of grapes, 1,151,249, and let me tell you that about one half of these grapes came from the United States.
We imported of canned goods in 1903. 1,608,749 pounds valued at $83,545. Of this amount of canned goods 730,064 pounds came from the United States and under the jjre-ferential tariff we received 718,368 pounds. Every pound of these goods could be grown in Canada, and put up in Canadian factories. The United States sent us last year $41,564 worth of canned fruit, and they took from us $13,891 worth, a very unfair exchange indeed, and an exchange which proves that we should have a bigger share of their market if we are going to let them have so large a share of ours. We imported last year 27,372,811 pounds of dried fruits ; so that you see that it is quite possible by slightly reducing the duty on the dried fruits to furnish revenue to the government, and to make compensation to the householders of this country for any enhanced cost they may be put to by reason of the increased duty on the green fruit. I am sure that the House will welcome this amendment. It gives us an opportunity of showing to the Finance Minister on the eve of his budget speech, just what the people of this country desire. I know, Mr. Speaker, (Mr. Campbell) your strong opinions on this question. I know you realize just as well as we do that the market-gardeners and producers of small fruits around the city of Toronto and throughout Canada are suffering by reason of the invasion of foreigners on their limited market. We hope that the First Minister will inform the Finance Minister of the views we have expressed, and that when he brings down the budget on Tuesday next there will be an adjustment of the duties on vegetables and small fruits, such as will inure to the best interests of the producers as well as the- consumers in this country.


Mr. JAS. CLANCY (Bothwell).: The Prime Minister devoted less than a minute by the watch, to the discussion of this important question ; he waived it aside with indifference, and he told us we would know the mind of the government when we heard the budget speech. Is-it not well that the government should know the sense of the House on this question, before that budget speech is delivered ? The only other member of the government who spoke was the Solicitor General, and he simply told us what the Hon. Mr. Tarte had said on a former occasion, and then he sat down sn tisfied. I sympathize with you to-night Mr. Speaker (Mr. Campbell'). I know this has been a painful scene to you. You headed a deputation that waited on the Minister of Finance with regard to this important question, and not many months ago you delivered an eloquent and earnest speech that came from your heart and not from your lips, in favour of the principle of the amend-

ment which is now before the House. I sympathize with you that you are compelled to-night to occupy the painful position of listening in silence to the jibes and. jeers ol the member for Brant (Mr. Heyd) against the market-gardeners and the farmers of this country. His remarks must have pained you. That hon. gentleman (Mr. Heyd) would compel the market-gardeners of this country to eat dried apples and Limburger cheese for having the temerity of petitioning this House for redress of their grievances. The hon. member for Brant spoke for the government. He is very prominent in_the county of Brant, but let me remind the House that he is a large importer of these very articles from the United States, on which we think a duty should be placed. It is this gentleman that the government gets to speak for them, and it is this gentleman who ridicules the farmers of this country.


Charles Bernhard Heyd: I am sure my hon. friend does not want to magnify my importance in the community in which I live. I never imported an ounce of anything in my life from the United States.


James Clancy: The rules of parliament compel me to take the hon. gentleman's word, but how does it come that a man engaged in business on one of the most important corners in the city of Brantford, never imported a single article in his life from the United States.


Charles Bernhard Heyd: Not of the articles you mention.


James Clancy: The hon. gentleman is qualifying it now, but it makes no difference.


Charles Bernhard Heyd: It makes a big difference.


James Clancy: The hon. gentleman has the ear of the Minister of Customs, and he succeeded in inducing the government by Order in Council of the 13th of February, 1902, to admit free of duty, steel for the manufacture of cutlery, there being a cutlery factory in his own town of Brantford. On the 4th of June, 1902, he succeeded in getting the Minister of Customs to allow in free of duty malleable iron or steel castings in the rough for the manufacture of scissors, so as to help the cutlery factory in his own town.


Charles Bernhard Heyd: Allow me again to say that I had nothing to do with it.


James Clancy: The hon. gentleman is now obliged to deny that he bore any part in procuring a reduction in the cost of the raw material'for the cutlery factory in his own town. Why, Sir, it is the most astonishing denial I ever heard. However, t will accept the hon. gentleman's statement.


Charles Bernhard Heyd: The only astonishing thing about it is that what I have said is true, and what you are saying is, not true.
Mr. CLANCY,
Mr. CiLANCY. Will the hon. gentleman say that these reductions were not made ?


Charles Bernhard Heyd: I do not say that. I say that 1 had nothing to do with bringing then, about; that is all.
Mr. CLANCi'. Was the hon. gentleman opposed to them ?


Charles Bernhard Heyd: Certainly not.


James Clancy: What an independent position the hon. gentleman takes ; what little t responsibility he takes. No charge could be laid at his door. He knows nothing about it ; he is not responsible, and he is scarcely < ognizant that it ever took place. What was that done for ? It was done for the purpose of bolstering up and encouraging an industry in the hon. gentleman's own town which was perishing, and the government of the day had not the courage to impose protective duties, but, to compensate, they made a reduction in the duties on the taw material ; and what happened ? Perhaps the hon. gentleman does not know that the doors of that establishment in hi, own town have been closed for the want of reasonable protection. But the hon. gentleman was not satisfied with that. He supported and voted for the taking of the duty off binder twine ; and what is he doing now? Supporting a government which taxes the farmers and market-gardeners, and makes them pay tribute to the manufacturers of binder twine by way of bounties, because the duties have been taken away. The hon. gentleman is almost every day making the life of the Finance Minister unhappy by going to him and urging him to put a duty of $5 apiece on carriages to assist an industry in his own town. Perhaps he will deny that ?


Charles Bernhard Heyd: Yes ; I will deny that, too.


James Clancy: I have the information that the hon. gentleman carried a pair of scissors in his pocket for two sessions to show what a splendid industry they had in Brantford. Perhaps he will say that is not true ?


Charles Bernhard Heyd: No ; that is correct.


James Clancy: what is provoking. When we have anything to sell to them they charge an exorbitant tariff on it, whereas when they have anything to sell to us, we let it in at a much lower rate. If we send a young cattle to them less than a year old, they will charge a duty of fifty cents, and over a year old they will charge a dollar. On all sides they have the advantage under this government which promised to be a government of reform and example.


Andrew B. Ingram: As this is the first time I am free to vote for this resolution, I wish to say a few words. I was unable to vote for it on the two former occasions, except in so far as a pair may be considered a vote, because each time I happened to be paired with a government member. I wish to say that I fully concur in the remarks of my hon. friend fromj Peel (Mr. Blain) and of those who support him from this side. I regret that I could not understand the language in which my hon. friend from St. John and Iberville (Mr. Demers) spoke, but I venture to guess that probably his constituents will have as difficult a task to understand the arguments he made and the stand he has taken. With respect to the hon. gentleman from Gaspe iMr. Lemieux),' who quoted the argument made use of by the hon. member for St. Mary's (Mr. Tarte), who was then a cabinet minister, and who argued that the Canadian market-gardeners could not grow market-garden stuff during the winter months and therefore it was not advisable to increase the duty, and I am informed that the market-gardeners waited on the government and asked for an increase in the tariff. When the argument was used that they could not produce vegetables during the winter months, they said they were willing to accept a sliding scale. That is to say that during the winter months, when it was held they could not produce the vegetables they should be charged duty on a sliding scale and that would not prevent the Americans coming in. But in the season when they could produce vegetables they asked that a sliding scale should be so adjusted as to prevent American competition. That is the difference between the argument then and now.
Now, with respect to the ex-Minister of Public Works (Mr. Tarte) we all know that it was his constitutional duty to take the position he did at that time. Knowing that a majority of the cabinet were opposed to an increase of duty, what other course had he as a cabinet minister? Could we expect him to rise in his place and condemn the policy that the government themselves had decided upon ? Certainly not. But, as soon as he left the cabinet and he left it because the majority of his colleagues were opposed to reasonable protection for the industries of this country-he published an article in the newspaper with which he


Jean-Baptiste Morin: is connected repudiating the arguments used in support of the position he had taken on the protection of market-gardeners. \t hen he was free to express his opinions the opinions he expressed were the direct opposite from those we have heard from the hon. member, for Gaspe (Mr. Lemieux). Some attention lias been paid to the remarks of my hon. friend from South' Brant (Mr. Heyd). I was sorry to hear that hon. gentleman speak as he did. He is eager to protect the manufacturers in the city of Brantford because they are his constituents. In a sneering way he alluded to the fact that the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Biain) had mentioned farmers, and the hon. member (Mr. Ilyed) thought he should have confined himself to the market-gardeners. He mentioned several articles on which the farmers of this county had protection. But he opposed the increase of the duty on butter, cheese and eggs and other articles produced by our farmers. Is it not true that the agriculturists of the United States produce more than the people of the 'United States consume, and yet they find it necessary to have a duty of six cents a dozen on eggs, double the duty on butter that we have, and double the duty on cheese ? The Canadian agriculturists also produce more than we consume. In all fairness we should put the Canadian farmer on at least as good a plane as the Americans. What objections then, can the government have to putting on-duty for duty with the United States ? My hon. friend (Mr. Heyd) quoted oats. And here is a most remarkable thing that is shown by the tables of imports and exports. No farmer in this country, nobody who knows the faets, will deny that the agriculturists in this country can raise as good oats as those of the United States.


Jean-Baptiste Morin: Better.


Andrew B. Ingram: I am not a farmer, and' so am not in a position to speak of this matter from my own knowledge. But I am glad to be informed by the hon. gentleman (Mr. Morin) that we can, produce better oats than the United States. But I would like to point out that, while the Canadian farmers accepted 30 cents a bushel for their oats sent to the United States, Americans received fifty cents a bushel for oats brought into this country. I find that we exported to the United States 120,702 bushels of oats, for which we received $39,062. We imported into Canada 100,811 bushels of oats, for which the purchasers paid $50,896. That is to say, the Americans received $11,844 more for about 100,000 bushels of oats than we received for about 120,000 bushels. Now,
I say that if we had our own markets for the Canadian farmer, instead of being obliged to pay a duty of 15 cents a bushel on oats, going into the American market, while the American farmer can send oats into this country under a duty of 10 cents, which should be 15 cents a bushel, we would have

a better market at home. It is celarly the duty of the government to increase our duty to 15 cents a bushel as 1 said before. Now, in looking over twenty-one different articles of the farmer and market-gardener, I find that the Americans sent into Canada $3,664,201 in excess of what we sent to them. 1 may say to hon. gentlemen opposite that I do not include the item of 6.033,898 bushels of free corn valued at $3,250,329, nor am I including wheat, the import of which amounted to $556,705. Of course, it may be said that this was not consumed in this country. I am willing to admit that, and so I am not including it in this calculation.
1 notice hon. gentlemen opposite who represent constituencies in the Northwest smile at all this and treat it as a joke. Yet I find that in 1903 we exported to the United States only 1,907 horses, valued at $340,239, while we imported from the United States 29,59S horses, valued at $790,169. And the government supporters from the Northwest a ifew years ago were complaining bitterly because the Minister of Finance and this government did not increase the minimum valuation of horses to be imported into this country-in other words did not increase the duty. Then take cattle, another important item with our friends from the Northwest. We exported to the United States 10,432 head, valued at $292,288, while we imported into this country 37.527 head, valued at $472,689. Yet my hon. friend from Brant thinks this is all a joke. He thinks the farmers should not have protection. I am glad that i am to have an opportunity , to record my vote in favour of the Canadian farmers and market-gardeners. And. so long as I occupy a seat in this House I shall take the stand that the farmers of this country are entitled to greater protection than they have to-day. And I hope the party I have the pleasure of belonging to and supporting will make the case so plain that, after the next general election the leader who has the judgment to adopt this policy, will be given the opportunity of carrying that policy into effect. [DOT]


Thomas Simpson Sproule: This discussion is valuable for one thing if for no other. It will show the farmers of this country which party is their friend.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear. hear.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: My hon. friend from Gaspe (Mr. Lemieux) says ' hear, hear.' I wish to draw the attention of the Canadian farmer to the fact that this hon. gentleman is a minister of the Crown who rises and opposes this motion. He properly voiced the sentiments of the government, and it must be recognized as the sentiment of the government. And the Canadian farmer wants to know that, and knowing it he will see clearly that he is not likely to receive any protection from this government.


Rodolphe Lemieux: How about the hon. member for St. Mary's (Mr. Tarte) ?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: 
Rodolphe Lemieux: Lots of them.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: If he will come to the province of Ontario he will find that marketgardening is a great industry employing thousands. The market-gardeners in the hon. gentleman's (Mr Lemieux's) constituency produce fish, largely. We are willing to afford them protection in their industry and they should be fair enough to protect other industries in this country. ' But the hon. member for Gasp6 is a member of a government that is opposed to this motion. Another man who takes the same position is the hon. member for South Brant (Mr. Heyd). He treated the House to an old argument of the hon. member for North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton), an argument used by that hon. gentleman nearly a quarter of a century ago. an argument which has been for about that length of time exploded, discredited. He quotes the exportation of various lines of products from this country and says : Can you protect the cheese in this country when we export 229,000.000 pounds and only import a few thousand pounds ? Well, what brought about that condition ?
When American cheese was coming in until that industry was being destroyed in this country, it was the duty that was put on cheese and the restrictions surrounding the imports, that enabled the Canadian farmers to secure their own market and then they went into that line to such an extent that last year they exported 229,000,000 pounds of cheese. Would they have been able to export that quantity but for the protection given in 1878 ? No, because filled cheese was coming across the line into Canada and was being exported and branded as Canadian cheese, and the effect was to destroy the reputation of our cheese in the mother country. Canadians were being handicapped because their cheese was losing its reputation. But when a law was passed to prevent that, then the Canadians got the full advantage of the excellent character of their cheese. When a law was passed that gave protection to the Canadian producer of cheese, he developed his industry to such an extent that to-day Canadian cheese has a reputation inferior to none.
The hon. memuer spoke about pork, and asked : Can you protect the farmer in pork ? Does the hon. member for Brant



remember that in 1890 we were importing into Canada no less than 23,000,000 pounds of pork and fresh meats to feed the Canadian people ? Does he remember when the farmers came down here in large deputations and applied to the government to put on a duty ? The government did put on a duty, not as high as the Canadian farmer wished, and the result was that in one year we shut out 13,000,000 pounds of that pork. What is pork selling for today ? Remember that the imports did not include the head and feet, and portions of the hog which were of little value, because it did not pay to import them. 13,000,000 pounds of pork at 10 cents a pound would represent $1,300,000, so much of an additional market for the Canadian farmers. AVas that no benefit, no protection to him ? It is useless to tell the Canadian farmer that he had no additional market on account of the national policy in 1890, because he will tell you that you do not know what you are talking about. When the farmers began to get a profitable return for their pork after one year of this policy, that industry began to develop until it has reached its present great proportions. That duty did keep out American pork and is keeping it out to-day. It is true it is still coming in to some extent, and some of the duties need to be readjusted because of changed conditions ; pork is coming in in larger quantities than it should.
AVliat I have said with regard to pork applies equally to butter, to cheese and to other articles in that line. The hon. member says we cannot protect the Canadian farmers in 'butter. Does he remember when we passed a law to shut out oleomargarine, butterine and those substitutes for Canadian butter that were injuring the market for our butter ? His own friends a few years ago tried to take credit for passing that law, as they endeavoured to take credit for it one or two years ago.. And yet the hon. member for Brant asks, can you protect Canadian butter ? He need not ask that question of the Canadian farmer. He says, can you protect Canadian oats when we only imported 100,000 bushels last year and raised over 100,000,000 bushels ? AVhy did we import that small quantity ? Because we put on a duty that shut out American oats that was coming in by the million bushels, and the Canadian farmer to-day has his own market by virtue of that law. And yet we are told that you cannot protect the Canadian farmer. Sir, it is well that the Canadian farmer should know who are his friends in this House and who are his opponents. I say if this discussion served no other purpose than to show the Canadian farmer which party is opposed to his interest and which party is supporting it, it would still be well worth the time we are giving it. The hon. member voiced the sentiment of his party no doubt, and of his friends on that side of the Mr. SPROULE.
House. But why should the 'Canadian farmer expect anything from the present government ? Did they not tell the Canadian farmer that they were not in favour of protection, but in favour of a revenue duty only ? They have now a duty which gives them ample revenue, more than enough, why should they give the Canadian farmer any more protection ? Why give the Canadian manufacturer any more protection ? The tariff, they declared, is a better one than the tariff in force when they came into power, and gives them ample revenue, therefore the Canadian farmer need not look for any more protection, either for his garden stuff or for his produce in any other line. The then hon. member for South Oxford (Sir Richard Cartwright >
said : We are not supposed to protect the farmers. AA7hen they appealed to the government of that day to put on a duty, what was his reply ? All he could tell them to do was to work harder and eat less. That is the only consolation he gave the poor farmer who was beat out of the markets of his own country. The sooner the farmers know who are their friends in this House and this country the better for them. ' Ask and ye shall receive,' is an old scriptural saying we often hear quoted. The farmers have been asking, the market-gardeners have been asking, but this government, instead of giving them bread, are giving them a stone.


Charles Bernhard Heyd: When did the farmers ask for protection ?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: It is only a few years ago since I accompanied a deputation to the government on behalf of the market-gardeners asking that higher duties be put on.


Charles Bernhard Heyd: Farmers ?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Farmers and market-gardeners together. Why, the farmers have been asking over and over again, the market-gardeners have been asking over and over again, until they find that asking is of no use because a deaf ear is turned to them every time, they can get no consideration. Now are they not entitled to some consideration ? I find that between the farmers and the market-gardeners there are over 412,000 of them in this country. Do their numbers not entitle them to some cor [DOT] sideration ? AVe have given protection tc the manufacturer, we are paying a bounty to those who are producing iron, we are paying a bounty to those who are manufacturing binder twine, and to several other 'lines. But the 'great agricultural class of the country, the mainstay of the country to-day, can knock at the door of parliament in vain, because the gentlemen who control the destiny of this country for the time being are opposed to giving them protection, and are in favour of the principle of free trade. The hon. member for Brant has voiced their sentiments to-night,

so has the hon. member for Gasp6 (Mr. Lemieux) ; and the premier himself has devoted hut one minute to their interest and that is all. The premier says : We can give you no consolation, because the budget speech is coming down next week,-and he thinks this debate is sprung at an inopportune time. Why, this is the very best time of all others to bring it on. We are bringing this question up in time so as to draw the attention of the government to it, we want to bring before the government the needs of the market-gardeners and the farmers before the Finance Minister makes his pronouncement, then there will be no excuse for the government if they do not give that relief these people require.
House divided on amendment (Mr. Blain).
YEAS :
Messieurs.
Johnston (Cardwell), Kaulbaeh,
Kidd,
Lancaster.
Lefurgey,
Lennox,
LSonard,
MacLaren (Perth), Monk,
Morin,
Osier,
Pope,
Pringle,
Roche (Marquette), Sproule,
Thomson (Grey),
Tolton,
Vrooman, *
Wilmot,
Wilson-41.
NAYS :
Messieurs.
Bazinet,	LeBlanc,
Bickerdike,	Lemieux,
Borden (Sir Frederick)	Logan,
Bourbonnais,	Loy,
Brodeur,	Mackie,
Brown,	MacKinnon,
Bruneau,	MacLaren (Huntingdon
Bureau,	Macpherson,
Christie,	McCarthy,
Cowan,	McGugan,
Demers (Levis),	Mclsaac,
Demers (St. John),	McLennan,
Douglas,	Malouin,
Erb,	Marcil (Bagot),
Ethier,	Mayrand,
Fielding,	Meigs,
F'sher,	Morrison,
Fitzpatrick,	Murray,
Fortier,	Parmelee,
Galliher,	Paterson,
Geoffrion,	Prefontaine,
Gervais,	Puttee,
Gibson,	Riley,
Gould,	Rivet,
Grant,	Ross (Rimouski),
Haszard,	Ross (Yukon),
Heyd,	Scott.
Holmes,	Sifton,
Hughes (King's, P.E.I.)	Sinclair,
Alcorn,
Avery,
Barker,
Bell,
Bennett,
Birkett,
Blain,
Borden (Halifax), Bruce,
Casgrain,
Clancy,
Clare,
Clarke,
Daniel,
Donnelly,
Earle,
Gilmour,
Hackett,
Henderson.
Hughes (Victoria),
Hyman,
Johnston (Cape Breton) Johnston (Lambton), Kendall,
Lang,
Lapointe,
Laurier (Sir Wilfrid), Laurier(L'Assomption) Lavergne
(Drummond & Arth.),
Smith (Vancouver), Stephens,
Stewart,
Thompson
(Haldimand & Monck; Tobin,
Tolmie,
Tucker,
Turgeon,
Wright-76.
PAIRS :
Ministerial.
Calvert,
Wallace,
Cartwright,
Wade,
Harty,
Beith,
Bourassa,
Copp,
Davis,
Gallery,
Guthrie,
Law,
McCool,
Mulock,
Power,
Roche (Halifax),
Ross (Victoria), Sutherland (Essex), Dyment,
McColl,
Emmerson,
Sutherland (Oxford), McEwen,
Lovell,
Beland,
Campbell,
Costigan,
Dugas,
German,
Harwood,
Lewis,
Marcil (Bonaventure), Oliver,
Reid (Restigouche), Ross (Ontario), Russell,
Talbot,
Amendment (Mr. Opposition.
Taylor,
Tisdale,
Tupper,
Gourlay,
Reid (Grenville), Calvin,
LaRivihre,
Halliday,
Boyd,
Roddick,
Richardson,
Armstrong,
Smith (Wentworth), Northrup,
Culbert,
Kemp,
Robinson (Nord.), Ganong,
McCormick,
Ward,
Fowler,
Haggart,
Sherritt,
Kendry,
Bali,
Cochrane,
Seagram,
Tarte,
Maclean,
Carscallen,
McGowan,
McIntosh,
Hale,
Rosamoad,
Brock,
Lavell,
Broder.
Blain) negatived.


Mr. TAYLOR.: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Grenville (Mr. Reid) and the hon. member for West York (Mr. Campbell) have not voted.


Mr. J. D. REID.: I am paired with the hon. member for Kingston (Mr. Harty). Had I voted I would have voted for the amendment of the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Blain).
Motion (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) agreed to, and House went into Committee of Supply.
Weights, measures, gas and electric light inspection. Salaries of officers, inspectors and assistant inspectors of weights and measures, $62,300.


John Dowsley Reid: Perhaps the minister will explain ?


Hon. L. P. BRODEUR (Minister of Inland Revenue).: This is made up as follows:

Weights and measures 'increase'

Made up as below New appointments :
Assistant inspector, Quebec, L.
Bourget vice Chabot superannuated	 500	00
Assistant inspector, St. John, F. H.
Leblanc vice Richard, superannuated	* [DOT]	500 00
" Assistant inspector, Ottawa, W. F.
Gilby vice	Elliott	transferred.. 500	00
Assistant inspector, Ottawa, J.
Scott	 500	00
Assistant inspector, Ottawa, R.
Findlay	 500	00
Assistant inspector, Winnipeg, G.
M. McKay vice	Francis	
700	00Increases to officers-pages 31 and 32	
1,050	00
Elliott to excise, Sault Ste
Marie	$600 00
Chabot superannuated, Quebec	 600	00
Richard superannuated, St.
John	 600	00
Francis, deceased, Sault Ste
Marie	
600	00Dropping of item for one additional assistant inspector	
660	00
3,000 00
Net increase in salairies of inspectors	$1,250 00


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: There are increases for a number of the inspectors and assistant inspectors, and the net increase in salaries is $1,250.


Edward Frederick Clarke: What salaries are paid to the inspectors in Toronto, Montreal, Halifax and Quebec ?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: In Toronto $1,300, in Montreal $1,000, in Quebec $1,200 and in Halifax $1,000.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Does that include the raise to be given ?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: No. this is the actual salary. Then the $50 increase is added to that.


James Clancy: How many inspectors are there in the Service ?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: About fifty, of whom eighteen are inspectors and the others are assistant inspectors.


James Clancy: Are there any tq be appointed this year ?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: No, on the contrary, I
contemplate reducing the staff. I see there is a very large deficit.


James Clancy: It is impossible to hear what the hon. minister is saying.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: I see there is a large deficit in that branch of the service and
following the practice of my predecessor, I contemplate reducing the staff as much as possible.


James Clancy: Were there not some appointments made last year!


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: I do not know as to that, I do not see any mention in my notes.


James Clancy: There is an increase of $1,250 and does the hon. gentleman contemplate making some reduction in the number ?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: I am providing for inincreases in salary for those who are meritorious, most of these men are going to receive increases in salary. In the statement which I have just given there is a reduction of one.


James Clancy: Where is that reduction to take place ?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: I think it will be in Montreal.


James Clancy: On what plan is this increase being made ?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: On the reports of the officers :	those who are giving the best
service are generally rewarded by a small increase.


James Clancy: Who makes that report to the minister ?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: The inspectors of each district.


James Clancy: I imagine the hon. gentleman has a pretty good staff in the country, most of them trained men. Is it because of the magnitude of the work or the particular merits of the officers to be specially rewarded. On which of these plans are the increases to be made ?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Offlly those who pass the civil service examination are entitled to become assistant inspectors.


James Clancy: Is it the inspectors or assistant inspectors who get increases V Mr. BRODEUR. Most of the increases go to the assistant inspectors.


James Clancy: I suppose the hon. gentleman is rewarding the new appointees.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: There is no discrimination ; every one is increased if his conduct deserves it.


James Clancy: Does the minister judge by the magnitude of the work or by its quality ?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Both.


James Clancy: I suppose that generally the work is well done.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: I suppose so.


James Clancy: If the work is well done on the whole, I do not think there should be


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: 

any discrimination. Would tile minister give us the names of those whose salaries are increased ?


Mr.   BRODETJR@: I do not give the names of those who have reached the limit. The following are recommended to he increased : Messrs. Fitzgerald and Laidman, Hamilton; Messrs. Macdonald and Finlay, Ottawa ; Messrs. Kelly and Milligan, Toronto; Mr. Heyward, Windsor; Mr. Bourget, Que.; Mr. Morin, St. Hyacinthe; Mr. Cowan, St. John; Mr. Frame, Halifax; Mr. Davey, Charlottetown; Mr. Finley, Victoria; Mr. Costello, Calgary; and Mr. Fyfe, the inspector at Ottawa.


James Clancy: That is the total increase?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Yes.


Mr. LENNOX.: Are the recommendations for increases in writing ?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: The reports made by the inspectors are in writing. These officers make reports to the department, and we can judge for ourselves whether these assistant inspectors are discharging their duties properly.


Mr. DANIEL.: I wish to ask the minister, how is the inspection of gas conducted in the different cities, and what instructions, are given to the officers to enable them to ascertain the quality of the gas ? According to the reports of the officers of the department, there is a great difference in the quality of illuminating gas; and the reports depend largely upon the number of inspections made. If the inspections are made daily, and the average is taken in that way, we get a fair idea of the purity or illuminating power of the gas in any one factory or city ; but if the inspection is taken only once a month or now and again, it might happen to be taken in a certain city on a day when the gas was poor, and so a false idea would be given in regard to its quality. Perhaps the hon. minister would give us an idea of how these inspections are made, how frequently, and under what regulations.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: The regulations were adopted many years ago, and provide that the inspection shall be made as frequently as may be necessary.


John Waterhouse Daniel: How often would that be ?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: It depends entirely on the amount of work the officers have to do in the city where it is done. I shall be glad to send a copy of the regulations to my hon. friend.


John Waterhouse Daniel: I think we should be informed in what way that information is gathered, because I have heard complaints made in gas factories that under the regulations adopted by the department, the public does not get a fair idea of the illuminating power of the gas from the statement issued by the department.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Has the complaint ever been made to the department ?


John Waterhouse Daniel: Not that I know of.
Mi-. BRODEUR. I never heard any complaint.


John Waterhouse Daniel: I might inform the hon. minister that I found that the gas company in the city which I represent was very low in the scale in regard to the quality of their gas as reported by the Minister of Inland Revenue. I asked them why they made such poor gas. They said : The gas is all right, but the report of the Minister of Inland Revenue is all wrong. I should like to know whether the method of doing the work is equitable or not.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Perhaps that gas company has made a complaint to the department of the way in which it has been judged by the inspector. The matter has never been brought to ray attention, but I will inquire whether any such complaint has been made.	.
Mr. BIRIvETT. What is the salary at present received by the inspector at Ottawa?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: $1,400 for the chief inspector, Mr. Macdonald.


Mr. BIRKETT.: Does that include the $50 increase ?	'


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: That is what he is receiving to-day. He will get the $50 increase.


Richard Blain: I see at page Iv-19 of the Auditor General's Report this item : ' legal services, A. A. Bruneau, Sorel, Quebec, $105. ' What case was that ?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: I am not able to give an explanation to my hon. friend. I suppose it has reference to d lawsuit, but I have no details. I shall be glad to inquire and And out. It is for something that happened before I came into the department.


Richard Blain: Is this a legal firm in the province of Quebec ?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: I do not know.


Richard Blain: Will the hon. minister bring down the particulars at the next meeting ?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Yes.


Richard Blain: Scales are manufactured in the United States without being stamped, while scales manufactured in Canada are stamped before they are permitted to be used. Suppose a merchant in Winnipeg imports 100 of these scales, they are sold in Manitoba and the Northwest. What system of inspection does the hon. gentleman apply to them ?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: As soon as they are imported we are notified by the Customs Department, and then our officers inspect them where they are to be found.


Richard Blain: I am informed, and am quite sure that my information is correct, that the law is fulfilled when the importer gives notice to the department that he has a certain number of scales. He can then sell them all over the country, and they are sent 50 or 100 or 200 miles away, and are sold and distributed before the inspector arrives. There are a great many scales used constantly in Manitoba and the Northwest that have had no inspection at all.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: I do not think there are many, because we have assistant inspectors everywhere in the country, and when some scales are imported in that way we are notified of it. and then our inspectors go and inspect them. It was suggested that these scales should be inspected at the Customs Department: but that is not very easy in the case of large scales which have to be set up.


Mr. BIRKETT  .@: The importer is not allowed to sell them before they are inspected?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: No.	.


Richard Blain: Did the hon. minister say that if a notice is given the department by the importer of scales, the importer is compelled to hold them until they are inspected ?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: That is my impression. He should notify the department right away.


Richard Blain: Nevertheless that is not done, and there is nothing in the law to allow the minister to take action against the importers. I make the statement without fear of contradiction that there are imported into the Territories and Manitoba at present scales that are not stamped, and when the importer notifies the department that he has imported those scales, he has complied with the law and may sell them [DOT]before they are inspected.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: I have had no such case brought to my knowledge. I would be very glad if my hon. friend could give me Instances where the law has been violated.


Haughton Lennox: I think I understood the minister to say that it would be very in-1 convenient to inspect them at places where they were stored, as they could not be set up in those places. Very often the scales are large and have to be removed to the places where they are going to be established and set up before they can be inspected. That confirms the statement of my hon. friend from Peel, who says that the law is complied with when notice is given the department by the importer, and that the importer is then at liberty to sell. Does the minister not know what the regulations are in the matter ?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: The regulations provide that when a scale is imported we should be notified, and then an officer is *


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: sent to inspect it. Perhaps the law is defective. Perhaps the hon. member for Peel is referring to a case brought to my knowledge the other day of somebody in the west who claimed to have notified the department that he had a scale and no inspector went up there for some time.


Haughton Lennox: If the regulations order the importer to notify the department, then' as a matter of course the minister should see that the scales are inspected. But if the regulations do not provide against the selling of the scales before inspection, would it not follow that when the importer had given the notice, he would have done all required and could go on selling at once ?


Richard Blain: The point is this : Suppose a merchant in Brandon imports 100 scales from Chicago. When they have passed through the customs house and are in his store, he notifies the department that they are ready for inspection. He has then complied with the law and begins at once to sell them. They will be sold and scattered for hundreds of miles all over the Territories and Manitoba before they are inspected. I say that the minister should change the law by providing that the scales could not be sold until they are inspected.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: The regulations provide that all manufacturers and importers should notify the district inspector of the shipments and destinations of all weighing machines which cannot be inspected until finally set up.


Richard Blain: That just carries out what I have said. The importer complies with the law when he gives notice that the scales are in his place and then may go on selling them. The law should be altered so that he would not be permitted to sell them until they are inspected.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Perhaps the law is not suflicient to cover the case, and I will see that Mr. Pike looks into the matter.


Richard Blain: There is imported into Canada a very large number of these selfregistering scales, which are to be found in the butchers' shops and grocers' stores.
I am informed on very creditable authority that the United States people advertise that whoever purchases these scales may take 100 lbs. of beef, sell it in small quantities, and make five per cent. That is, they take a piece of beef and drop it on the self-registering scale. It will send the scale down to the lowest point, which is the point that registers what the consumer must pay for his beef, and the statement is made that a merchant can buy that self-registering scale, take 100 lbs. of beef or sugar, weigh it in small quantities, and he will make from three to five per cent. Our law does not permit these scales to be manufactured for the reason I have mentioned;

but if we do not permit their manufacture, we should not allow them to be imported, more particularly if they are sold under the advertisement to which I have drawn attention.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: No doubt wTe should not permit the importation and use of those scales, and I am sure that my officers absolutely. refuse to inspect them. In some cases I think we ordered that they should be re-exported.	,


Richard Blain: Where were those ?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: I think in the west.


Thomas Birkett: , No scale can be used unless registered. The scale has to be inspected and stamped before you can use it. Scales coming into Canada, if not stamped, are rejected.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Yes.


Edward Frederick Clarke: My hon. friend from Peel says that if inspections are made before the scales are sold by the importer, the customs would have control and the work be done satisfactorily ; but in one case 100 scales were purchased, and without having been inspected or adjusted they were sob and are being used. This is a very serious matter, especially if the statement can be made good that an inducement is held out to the dealers by advertising that these scales are so unfair and fraudulent that the consumer is not getting what he pays for. It is a very serious matter, especially in the sparsely settled districts if fraudulent scales are permitted to pass from the importer to the retailer.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Perhaps we could inspect these scales at the customs office ; but, as I said a minute ago, I suggested this myself and X was told that it could not be very easily done. And I think the only way is that which we have adopted,-to learn where these scales are in use and inspect them there. And if it is found that these scales are not in accordance with oul' laws the parties receive instructions to re-export them.	.


Richard Blain: I agree with the minister on that point. But how is the inspector to find out where the scales are, if they are sold to different men using them in distant parts of the country ?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Our inspectors go everywhere throughout the country and find these scales. And, if the scales are not right they are destroyed or re-exported. I am sure that in one case, at least, that has been done.


Richard Blain: But the hon. gentleman will not say that his inspectors can go to every farm house all over Canad_a to test the scales. That is not their duty. Or, perhaps I may be wrong in that ; but, I understand that "they only inspect scales used by merchants.
Mr. BRODEUR, If a man uses scales only for himself we do not care much. The Weights and Measures Act is made specially for the protection of the public. We inspect every two years the scales that are in use by dealers.


Haughton Lennox: Surely the minister is not serious in saying that if a farmer gets a scale and has it in use on his farm, the department does not care whether it is inspected or not.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Lennox) will understand that it is a much. more serious matter where the scale is used by a dealer in his business. We have to protect the public against fraud by the use of unfair scales.


Edward Frederick Clarke: It seems to me that the suggestion of the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Blain) is a good one and would expedite business-that those scales should be inspected before they are distributed.
Mr. BRODEUR, That can be done with small scales, but large scales have to be set up before they are used, and cannot be inspected until they are set up.


Edward Frederick Clarke: But, in the case of the importation of a quantity of scales, they are not likely to be of that character. They are likely to be small scales that could be inspected before they are distributed. It might be made a regulation that they must be inspected and stamped before they are distributed.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: That is done now. The importers in Montreal, for instance, notify our inspector of an importation, and the inspectors inspect the scales.


Richard Blain: There is another matter I. wished to speak about, and that is as to the inspection of self-registering scales, that are imported, the spring scale. The hon. gentleman will not allow the Canadian manufacturer to manufacture these scales.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Are not these special scales re-exported to the United States ?


Richard Blain: No, they are in use. I speak of the self-registering scales imported from the United States. Are they stamped by the department before they are allowed to go into use ?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Yes, they are inspected before being used.	.


Thomas Birkett: But there is a spring scale made that will not bear stamping. Every time you use it the spring gets weaker. These have been rejected by the department. There is a spring scale made, however, that will bear stamping. The law, to my mind is very clear. All importers are supposed to notify the department as soon as they receive scales, and after the scales are in position they can be inspected. The importer is not allowed to sell them until


they are inspected. Whoever sells them: notifies the department telling of the party to whom they are sold, and the local inspector looks them up and inspects them.


Richard Blain: This is an important question. Almost every farmer in Ontario has a scale upon his premises. Is it the duty of any inspector whose salary we are voting to visit farm houses, to inspect the scales or find out if they have been inspected ?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Everywhere where scales can be used in dealing with the public they ' are inspected.


Edward Frederick Clarke: I would like to have an explanation from the minister, not necessarily to-night, but before the items for his department are all passed, as to the rule adopted in fixing the salaries of the chief inspectors in Montreal, Toronto, Quebec, Ottawa and Halifax. If I understood the statement of the minister correctly, with the increases that have been given, the salary of the inspector at Montreal will be $1,650, that of the inspector at Toronto $1,350, that of the inspector at Ottawa, $1,450, that of the inspector at Quebec $1,250, and that of the inspector at Halifax $1,050. I presume that these are all efficient officers and that they are fully employed. Upon what scale are these salaries adjusted ?
An hop. MEMBER. Spring scale.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: I suppose it is by length of service, because I see that the inspector for Montreal whose salary is $1,650 was appointed in 1881. The inspector for Toronto whose salary is $1,350 was appointed in 1900.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Who is he ?
. Mr. BRODEUR. Mr. Kelly.


Edward Frederick Clarke: When was the inspector for Ottawa appointed ?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: He receives $1,450. He was appointed in 1886.


John Dowsley Reid: Are the inspectors entitled to any fee for inspecting scales ?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: They have to render an account to the department of all the fees they collect. They are simply paid by salary.


John Dowsley Reid: For instance, those who inspect scales charge fees and travelling expenses.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: In some cases fees and travelling expenses are charged to those who ask for a special inspection to 'be made. But they have to return all that money to the department.
Rent, fuel, travelling expenses, postage, stationery, &c., for gas and electric light inspection and the purchase and repairs of instruments, $12,000.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: I understand that this whole item 247 is passed.


Thomas Birkett: 


Charles Eusèbe Casgrain: With the understanding that the question of the Metric system will be discussed on another item ?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Yes.
Some resolutions reported.



ADJOURNMENT-BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Right Hon.   S@: FIELDING moved the adjournment of the House.


Charles Eusèbe Casgrain: What business does the hbn. gentleman intend to take up tomorrow ?	.


William Stevens Fielding: There are a number of minor Bills which will be taken up, except the Militia Bill. After that, if we have time to go into supply, we will take Inland Revenue, to be followed by Agriculture.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House adjourned at 1.40 a.in., Thursday.
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, June 2, 1904.
The SPEAKER took the Chau- at Three o'clock.

Right Hon.   S@: MACLAREN (Huntingdon) moved for leave to introduce Bill (No. 128) to prohibit the importation, manufacture and sale of cigarettes.
Some lion. MEMBERS. Explain.


Mr. MACLAREN.: I do not think much explanation is necessary at this stage of the Bill. When the resolution in reference to the prohibition of cigarettes was debated in this House, out of thirteen who spoke nine hon. gentlemen were in favour of the legislation : two thought that the cigarettes were an evil, but that the method proposed was not the best remedy ; and one. the youthful member for Montmagny (Mr. Lavergne). was strongly in favour of cigarettes, and informed us that though he had smoked them from ten years of age he was nothing the worse of it. I thought the junior member for West Toronto (Mr. Osier) was going to follow in his footsteps. but he switched off from cigarettes and attacked our farmers' wives for not being good cooks and thus causing indigestion. He told us that he was not a member for a rural constituency, but I fancy every one knew that, because if he were he would have known better. In view of the debate that has taken place, I do not think it is necessary that I should give any further explanation.


Mr. DAVID HENDERSON (Halton).: I desire to remind the hon. member for Huntingdon that my recollection is that the junior member for West Toronto (Mr. Osier) was
/

endorsed by the Prime Minister very largely in what he did say.


Wilfrid Laurier: Oh, I did not attack the farmers' wives.


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


Mr. W. J. ROCHE asked :: Is it the intention of the government to open up Crooked Lake reserve, N.W.T., or any part thereof, for settlement*?


Clifford Sifton: Before any portion of the Crooked Lake reserve could be disposed of, it would have to be surrendered by the Indians, which has not yet been done. The question as to obtaining a surrender of a portion of the reserve has received some consideration from the department, but as yet no surrender has been obtained.


DUTIES ON RAW LEAF TOBACCO.
James Clancy: What amount of customs duties were collected on raw leaf tobacco for. the fiscal year ending June 30, 1903 ?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: The duties on raw-leaf tobacco are collected by the Inland Revenue Department. During the fiscal year referred to the duties so collected amounted to $1,249,569.17. A sum of $96 has been also collected by the Customs Department for duties on samples of foreign raw leaf tobacco.


DOMINION STEEL COMPANY-STRIKE AT SYDNEY.
Robert Laird Borden: Before the Orders of the Day are called, I wish to ask the government whether or not they have taken any steps with regard to the strike inaugurated at the works of the Dominion Iron and Steel Company at Sydney, in my province ? As the government is no doubt aware, the works of this company are of the greatest possible importance to the town of Sydney, which is now a large community of some 12,000 or 14,000 people, although ten or twelve years ago it was a village of only 2,000 or 3,000 population. The interests of the town and of the people who reside there are bound up very largely in the prosperity of this company, and of the Dominion Coal Company. I understand from pres* reports that about 1,800 men have gone on strike and that the works of the company are closed down, and are likely to be closed down for an indefinite period. This would seem to be a special occasion when the intervention of the government is demanded ; the results of this strike may be that five or six thousand people will leave the province of Nova Scotia and endeavour to find homes in the United States.
It is therefore of the utmost possible importance that everything in the power of the government should be done for the purpose of bringing the strike to an end and of causing the company to resume its operations. I do not know whether the government has taken any steps tending towards intervention, but I have been informed that the Board of Trade of Sydney has sent a communication to the government by telegraph, asking that some such steps be taken. My information did not come from the board of trade itself, but from another quarter, and I thought it a sufficiently important matter to bring to the attention of the government at once. I should be glad if the right hon. gentleman, in the absence of the Minister of Labour, would give the House any information as to what the government has done or what it proposes to do, with respect to a matter of such very great importance, not only to the interests of Sydney, but to the whole province of Nova Scotia, and I may say to the whole Dominion.


William Stevens Fielding: Mr. Speaker, 1 join-with my hon. friend the leader of the opposition in recognizing the very great importance of the matter to which ho ha3 referred, and I assure the House that if, by the intervention of the Minister of Labour or in any other way, the government, by the exercise of its friendly offices, can bring about a better understanding between the company and the workmen, it will be both our duty and our pleasure to do so. The strike, as the hon. gentleman has intimated, is one of recent hours, and has only now taken definite effect. The communication to which he has referred has been received by the Department of Labour, and the matter is now engaging the minister's attention, it is not possible at the present moment to indicate in what way the Department of Labour or the government may intervene ; but I assure the hon. gentleman that we appreciate the importance of the matter, and we shall be glad to do anything we can, by friendly intervention or in any other way, to bring about a solution of the difficulty.


INQUIRY FOR RETURNS.
Mr. A. A. LEFURGEY.: Mr. Speaker, I wish to call attention to the fact that on several occasions when I have had questions on the order paper, I have been asked to put them on the motion paper. In several instances I have complied with this request. I had a question on the order paper yesterday, the answer to which involved very little trouble on the part of the minister to whose department it belonged, and I was asked to move for a return. I have had some experience in moving for returns. As I pointed out yesterday. I moved for a return on the 25th of April, and I have not received the in-

formation yet. At this stage of the session, when these motions are not likely to be reached, I think it is not fair to ask me to put on the motion paper a question which involves no more trouble than the one I had on the order paper yesterday. 1 would like to ask the First Minister 10 have that question replaced on the .order-paper, and the answer given to it.


Wilfrid Laurier: My hon. friend says that he moved for some papers on the 25th of April. Does he refer to the papers in connection with the Murray Harbour works ?


Alfred Alexander Lefurgey: Yes.


Wilfrid Laurier: Well, the notice of motion was made on the 25th of April, but my hon. friend did not move for the papers until the 31st of May. When my hon. friend called my attention to the matter on that day, I immediately wrote to the Department of Railways, and I was informed as follows :
Upon inquiry I find the only returns in connection with the Murray Harbour works and the Hillsborough bridge were moved tor by Mr. Hackett, on the 25th April. One has gone forward to the Secretary of State, and the other is being prepared.
In looking up the Votes and Proceedings, I find an order of the House was passed yesterday for a return asked for by Mr. Lefurgey, and this only reached the department this morning. It will be prepared as quickly as possible as it will be necessary to send to Moncton for the information.


Alfred Alexander Lefurgey: I would like to correct the right hon. the First Minister. I did move for some returns on the 31st of May, but they were not the same as those I moved for on the 25th of April.


Wilfrid Laurier: Yes, I know. Those were moved for by Mr. Hackett.


Alfred Alexander Lefurgey: The first was moved on the 25th of April.
grand trunk pacific railway-employment OF ALIENS COMMISSION.


Robert Laird Borden: I asked the government yesterday for some information respecting the employment of counsel in connection with the commission issued to Judge Winchester.
Sir WILFRID LAL'RIER. I am sorry to say I cannot give an answer to my hon. friend to-day. I have not been able to see the Postmaster General since yesterday, as he has been out of town.


Edward Frederick Clarke: May I ask the premier if any steps are being taken to procure a full report of the evidence being taken before His Honour Judge Winchester?


Wilfrid Laurier: I cannot say as to that. I have to give my hon. friend the same answer as I have given to the


Alfred Alexander Lefurgey: hon. leader of the opposition :	I have not
seen the Postmaster General since yesterday.


BOUNTIES ON LEAD.
[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 127) to amend the Act providing for the payment of bounties on lead contained in lead-bearing ores mined in Canada (Sir Richard Cartwright), was read the second time, and House went into committee thereon.
On section 1,
1. Section 5 of chapter 31 of the- statutes of 1903, intituled : ' An Act to provide for the payment of bounties on lead contained in leadbearing ores mined in Canada,' is repealed, and the following is substituted therefor :-
5. Payment of the said bounty may be made on all such lead-bearing ores mined in Canada and delivered at a smelter in Canada on or after the first day of July, one thousand nine hundred and three ; and the said bounties shall cease and determine on the thirtieth day of June, one thousand nine hundred and eight.
Robert Laird Borden: The hon. gentleman promised us some information as to the comparative results.


Sir RICHARD CARTWRIGHT.: The amount paid appears to have been $51,000, which represents 60 per cent of the claims allowed. Of course, a considerable number of claims are pending, and some will be dealt with under the provisions of this Act when it is passed. I have been endeavouring to ascertain whether I could get full information for the hon. gentleman, but I find that it is scarcely in our power to ascertain what was done during past years. The officer in charge thinks there has been a considerable development, but he is not in a position to obtain full details, as the Act has been in operation only a few months, and he has nothing to guide him as to what was done in former times except his personal knowledge of what was going on.


Mr. WILSON.: Can the minister tell us who is appointed to look after this matter ? I understand you have an official in British Columbia at a salary of $2,500 and expenses. Is there just one officer ?


Richard John Cartwright: That is all we have found necessary at present.


Uriah Wilson: Kindly give his name and salary, and the expenses incurred thus far.


Richard John Cartwright: His name is Buchanan. His salary is $2,500 and actual expenses incurred in carrying out the regulations of the Act.
Bill reported, read a third time and passed.


PILOTAGE ACT AMENDMENT.
[Stage Direction]
Rill (No. 100) to amend the Pilotage Act.- (Mr. Prfifontaine) was read the second time and House went into Committee thereon.

Mr. PREFONT  AINE@: The Bill is very short as hon. gentlemen will see. Last year a Bill was introduced placing the pilots between Montreal and Quebec under the authority of the Minister of Marine and Fisheries. It was done at the request of the pilots, the boards of trade and the Harbour Commissioners of Montreal and Quebec. In the Bill there was a clause by which the district of Saguenay was'put under the control of the Minister of Marine and Fisheries as regards pilotage, but the Bill did not go far enough in conferring authority on the Minister of Marine to control entirely the pilotage of the Saguenay river, and when it became necessary to prepare rules for the pilotage of the Saguenay river, we considered that we had not sufficient powers. A commission was appointed in Chicoutimi to supervise the pilotage of the river, but the authority of the pilotage itself does not reside in the Minister of Marine and Fisheries, and we think it is in the interest of navigation that it should be. Hon. gentlemen will remember that last year a very serious accident occurred on the Saguenay. A boat was wrecked in broad daylight by an incompetent pilot, and as the river difficult to navigate, it requires special pilots with special knowledge of the locality and these pilots should be examined under the proper authority of the Department of Marine. so as to have mSn properly qualified to pilot in the Saguenay. It is not the intention to take other pilots but those of the district of Quebec. It is the intention of the department to take power to examine pilots for the district of Quebec and to see that they are qualified.


Charles Eusèbe Casgrain: I quite agree with the hon. gentleman when he says the Bill is short, but not when he comes to give us the meaning of the Bill. It is much more comprehensive than would appear from the explanation he has given. The pilotage au-authority in each district is not only the authority which chooses the pilots, but is also the tribunal instituted for trying pilots. Now, this may be a very important tribunal. For instance, in the case the hon. minister has mentioned, the grounding of the steamer, the pilot, who was at fault, was tried and suspended for quite a long time. A pilot can be suspended for his lifetime by the pilotage authority, which can impose a most severe sentence upon a pilot even to the extent of taking away his branch as it is called, or his license, thereby depriving him of his means of livelihood. I am sure it is not the intention of my hon. friend the Minister of Marine and Fisheries to constitute himself a tribunal to try pilots, for instance in Quebec, but the Bill which is now before the committee gives him that power. If, as he says, this law is only for the district of Saguenay, he should say so, but surely this committee is not going to give my hon. friend the power to constitute himself a tribunal to try these most important cases.
The corporation of pilots for and below Quebec is a most important corporation ; they are men who have been obliged to go through a long course of studies to become pilots. The apprenticeship of a pilot is seven years. After he serves seven years he is admitted as a branch pilot, but in case the number of pilots is 125, he may be obliged to remain in apprenticeship for a number of years longer. These men are from their training capable of being pilots and of being pilots only. Such a man cannot do anything else to earn a livelihood in the ordinary course of things, and if an accident occurred for which he is held responsible, he can* according to this Bill, be tried by one man, the Minister of Marine. I think this is putting in the hands of the Minister of Marine, a power which this House would be very loath to confer. The fact of the matter is that the tribunal is just as important a tribunal as any of the superior courts that sit in Quebec. I am sure it is not the intention of my hon. friend, but if it is not, he should amend the Act so that it would preclude his being able to become that pilotage authority in the sense of being able to try offences laid at the door of a pilot. I would ask my hon. friend to make this .clear. There are several members of parliament who have pilots among their constituents, and I am sure they will take a lively interest in this Bill, which although it is short, may have the most important possible influence on the pilots, both in the district of Quebec and of Montreal.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: The Bill puts the pilots under the control of the Department of Marine, when it seems to be in the interest of navigation that this should be done, and I do not see what harm there is in having the proper authorities to investigate accidents that may happen in the St. Lawrence or elsewhere. It is a matter of judgment whether it would be better in the hands of the Department of Marine or in the hands of the Harbour Commission.
In proposing this Bill I , am supported by the pilots themselves, for they accept this Bill as being in their interest, in this way, that they think that they will pass better (examination and will offer more security for the maritime interest. So I am not afraid at all for the consequences of the Bill. It has a large scope but its powers can only be exercised, as I pointed out and as provided by the Bill, by Order in Council, based on serious reasons for doing so. The Department of Marine and Fisheries is not interested at all in- depriving people generally of their rights ; quite the contrary. But the hon. member for Montmorency (Mr Casgrain) knows perfectly well the complaints that have existed against the pilots. We are trying to improve the guarantee the pilots offer to navigation, and it is by taking the necessary precautions and improving the examinations passed by these gentlemen that the corporation of pilots themselves will be

more respected and will inspire greater confidence. I repeat there is no objection on the part of the pilots-quite the contrary ; and I think it is a measure directed in the interest of the navigation and of the public generally.


Robert Laird Borden: What is the idea of making this Bill so comprehensive ? I understand from the hon. minister (Mr. Prefontaine) that the special design is to effect some reform in the distriot which embraces the river Saguenay. But the Bill is so comprehensive that it would enable the hon. gentleman to assume the supervision of pilotage in the port of Halifax if he desired to do so.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: That is not the intention.


Robert Laird Borden: I am not talking about the intention, but the scope. I want the power given to correspond with the intention. If the intention is to do a certain thing, there is no reason for making the power more comprehensive. If the hon. gentleman is merely trying to carry out the intention he has announced, he has gone very wide of the mark and has included a great deal more than he speaks of. In undertaking to cover one district he has covered the whole Dominion. His aim has not been very good. In any case, I do not see how this Bill would be workable, so far as the port of Halifax is concerned. Suppose you supersede the pilotage authorities of Halifax, St. John or Sydney, how would the department propose to carry on the work ? No machinery is provided. It is not worth while to piss Acts that are incomplete or useless. Let us do either one thing or the other-either confine this statute to what the hon. gentleman says is the intention of the government, or, if wc go beyond that, make a provision that is workable not only on the river St. Lawrence but In the maritime provinces. I think that on the whole, the pilotage authorities of the maritime provinces have worked with a fair degree of satisfaction and have given efficient service. I would not favour passing a statute in this comprehensive form unless I knew some reason why a statute going so far beyond the declared intention of the government is sought by the minister.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: I do not see the force of the objection. The objection seems to me that according to this Bill there is no machinery provided. But the Bill does not provide the machinery, for that is already provided in the Pilotage Act. We are only amending the way in which the *machinery can be applied.


Robert Laird Borden: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Prefontaine) misunderstands me. That is the minor objection. The chief objection is that this is too comprehensive and goes beyond the intention of the government.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: 


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: The intention of the government is simply this: Whenever it is in the interest of navigation that the pilotage authority should reside in the Department of Marine and Fisheries, it shall be so provided by Order in Council, and. from that time for the waters referred to in that Order in Council, the pilotage authority shall rest in the Minister of Marine and Fisheries. What objection can there be to that ? I have not heard any complaints about the pilotage in Halifax or St. John. But suppose that to-morrow-


Edward Frederick Clarke: Why not leave them alone?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: I do not touch them.


Charles Eusèbe Casgrain: The hon. gentleman does by his Bill.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: I do not.


Charles Eusèbe Casgrain: Oh. pshaw '


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: Suppose that tomorrow the Harbour Commissioners of Halifax should decide on some rules that would not be in the interest of navigation.


Robert Laird Borden: Well ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: Then the department would be obliged to wait for another session in order to bring in a Bill to correct that state of affairs.


Robert Laird Borden: I should have thought that the hon. gentleman (Mr. Prefontaine) knew more about his department than that. If he is at all familiar with the statutes he must know that these regu-tions have no effect until they are approved by the Governor in Council.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: But suppose they do not apply the I'egulation. Suppose, for instance, the examinations they give the apprentice pilots are practically no examination at all.


Robert Laird Borden: Then, I would dismiss them.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: This year, since we took over the pilotage of Montreal district, we have applied different rules for the examination than formerly existed. The examinations the pilots used to pass were obsolete and did not afford the necessary guarantee for the efficiency of the pilots. We have changed these rules and are trying to give a system of pilotage that will be as efficient as possible. It is only by taking it in hand when the necessity arises that we can hope to make the system work properly and effect due improvements in the pilotage service.	*


Charles Eusèbe Casgrain: I must say that it seems to me from what my hon. friend (Mr. Prefontaine) says and from reading the Bill, that this Bill is brought before the committee without due consideration having ' been given to it by the Minister of Marine

and Fisheries (Mr. Prefontaine). Either he does not understand the Bill, or he does not know anything about the law he seeks to amend. Now. this is a most important Bill and one which, to a great extent, affects the liberty of the subject. It is more far-reaching' than my hon. friend seems to think.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: No.


Charles Eusèbe Casgrain: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Prefontaine) is showing most glaring ignorance of a most important Bill the carrying out of which is the duty of his department. What is the pilotage authority for instance, for the Quebec district ? The Quebec Harbour Commissioners ? The Pilotage Act, chapter 80, of the Revised Statutes of Canada, section 15, provides :
15. Subject to the provisions of this Act, or of any Act for the time being in force in its pilotage district, every pilotage authority shall have power, from time to time, by by-law confirmed by the Governor in Council, to do all or any of the following things within its district, that is to say :-
To determine the qualifications of pilots ; to make regulations respecting pilot boats ; to aid companies for the support of pilot boats ; to grant licenses and certificates ; to make regulations as to licenses and certificates ; to make regulations for the government of pilots; to make rules for punishing breaches of regulations ; to fix and alter pilotage dues ; compulsory retirement of aged pilots ; and of infirm and intemperate pilots ; decision of disputes about pilotage ; to establish and regulate pilot funds, except in Quebec and Montreal districts.
Now, that is very important, but it is not half so important as the other sections of this Act. When we come to the ^offices of pilots what do we see ? Section 73 of the Act says :
73. Every licensed pilot "who, either within or without the district for which he is licensed,
(a.) Commits any fraud or offence in respect to the revenues of customs or inland revenue or the laws relating thereto ;
(b.) Is in any way directly or indirectly concerned in any corrupt practices relating to ships, their tackle, cargoes, crews or passengers, or to persons in distress at sea or by shipwreck, or to their moneys, goods or chattels ;
(c.) Lends his license ;
(d.) Acts as pilot whilst suspended ;
(e.) Acts as pilot when in a state of intoxication ;
(f.) Employs or causes to be employed on behalf of any ship of which he has the charge, any steamboat, boat, anchor, cable, or other store, matter or thing, beyond wThat is necessary for the service of such ship, with the intent to enhance the expenses of pilotage for his own gain, or for the gain of any other person ;
(g.) Refuses or delays, when not prevented by illness or other reasonable cause, to take charge of any ship within the limits of his license, upon the signal for a pilot being made by such ship, or upon being required so to do by the master, owner, agent or consignee 1
thereof, or by any officer of the pilotage authority of the district of which such pilot is licensed or by any principal officer of customs, subject always in the case of a pilot for and below' the harbour of Quebec, to the laws relating to the corporation of pilots for and below- the harbour of Quebec ;
(h.) Upon being so signaled or required, attempts to make any special bargain for salvage ;
(i.) Unnecessarily cuts or slips, or causes to be cut or slipped, any cable belonging to any ship ;
(j.) Refuses, when requested by the master to conduct the ship on board of which he is into any port or place into which he is licensed to conduct the same, except on reasonable grounds of danger to the ship ; or-
(k.) Quits the ship which he has undertaken to pilot, before the service for which he has hired has been performed, without the consent of the master,

Shall, for each offence, in addition to any liability for damages, be liable to a penalty not exceeding two hundred dollars, and suspension or dismissal by the pilotage authority of the district for which he is licensed ; and every person who procures, abets or connives at the commission of such offence shall, for each offence, in addition to any liability or damages, be liable to a penalty not exceeding two hundred dollars, and if he is a licensed pilot, to suspension or dismissal by the pilotage authority of the district for which he is licensed.
Now my hon. friend would attribute to himself the power of trying these offences.
I admit my hon. friend is a lawyer, I admit he is probably as Capable of trying these offences as an ordinary police magistrate would be, or probably as competent as would be the pilotage authority, for instance, of the pilotage district of Quebec. But is my hon. friend, in the political position which he occupies now. going to take upon himself to try these offences and to impose a fine of $200 on any pilot who makes himself liable under the law ? I say that the hon. gentleman could not take that position, occupying the political position which he does, unless he is going to become a . udge to try these very important cases, and to impose fines upon those who render themselves guilty of the offences in question.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: I would remind my hon. friend that at the present time that authority has been conferred upon me by the pilots themselves, by the boards of trade | and the shipping interests.


Charles Eusèbe Casgrain: I do not like to controvert the statement of my hon. friend, but I think it would be most extraordinary if the pilotage authority and the pilots of the district of Montreal had put these enormous powers in the hands of my hon. friend. But even if he has those powers for the pilotage district of Montreal, I say that so far as I am concerned I protest most emphatically against his taking these great powers for the pilotage district of Quebec. But that is not all. Section 9S of the Pi.ot-

age Act provides with regard to investigations :
The pilotage authority for any district shall, in all cases of inquiry or investigation made by them under this Act, or under any other Act or law, have full power to examine any person appearing before them to give evidence m. oases on oath ; and such oath may be administered by any member of such pilotage authority present at such inquiry or investigation.
99.	Whenever any ship sustains damage through the fault of any branch pilot for and above the harbour of Quebec, the pilotage authority of the pilotage district of Montreal may, in its discretion, and upon such information as it deems expedient, and with or without complaint by any person, investigate the matter and declare the branch of such pilot forfeited.
And this provision exists for the pilotage district of Quebec also. My hon. friend says power has been given to him by parliament in the district of Montreal. It has not be n given to him in the district of Quebec. Now what are the penalties ?
100.	When any ship meets with any accident
by reason of the fault of and while in charge of a pilot for and below the harbour of Quebec, the master, owner or consignee thereof, or other interested person may submit his complaint in respect thereto at any time thereafter, and the pilotage authority

That would be my hon. friend, of the pilotage district of Quebec may, upon such information as it deems expedient, and wnh oi without complain/ by any person, investigate the matter and declare the branch of such pilot forfeited :
Thereby taking away from tlie pilot for all time to come his means of earning a livelihood, this man who has made sacrifices to qualify himself as a pilot, who has served a long apprenticeship for that purpose, and upon judgment rendered against him by my hon. friend he may forfeit his branch or his license and be absolutely debarred from earning his livelihood in the avocation for which he has qualified himself.
Provided, that in the case of inward bound ships, no investigation shall be had after the expiry of thirty days

And so forth. There are other penalties which are imposed by this Act and which are triable by the pilotage authority. Now I am confining myself more particularly to the pilotage authority of the pilotage district of Quebec. Let us see what safeguards the law has given to the pilots in the district of Quebec. The pilotage autlnr-ity for the district of Quebec is the harbour commissioners of the harbour of Quebec. But when they sit as a tribunal to try these very serious offences for which these rigorous and severe penalties may be inflicted upon the pilots, it is enacted in the law that the president of the corporation of pilots shall be a member of the board ; so that the corporation of pilots is represented upon that board by a man who is perfectly com-Mr. CASGRAIN.
petent to judge of the case, to investigate the matter, and to decide whether the pilot who is accused has made himself liable to punishment under the law. Now I leave it to my hon. friend himself. When he came before the committee a little while ago with this Bill and explained it to the committee, he confined his remarks almost entirely to the pilotage district of the Saguenay river which was created by the law which he had passed by this House last year. But when you come to examine the law itself it is not at all in keeping with my hon. friend's explanations, and this shows clearly that the department never did intend to make m.v hon. friend the pooh-bah of the pilotage district anywhere. They did not intend, he himself or his department did not intend, to vest the Minister of Marine and Fisheries with these enormous and exorbitant powers to sit as a qourt and try these men for offences for which they may be deprived of their branch or license. Now I appeal to my hon. friend's fairness. He may not always he the Minister of Marine and Fisheries. Probably some one else will succeed him some day who will not be so competent to try these offences. As I have said, my hon. friend is a distinguished member of tlie bar, but even then, I do not know that he wouid be in a position to sit as an investigating magistrate or as a pilotage authority to make this investigation and to pronounce upon the guilt or innocence of the pilot. But supposing a layman were put in his place, supposing a gentleman who has not had the legal training of my hon. friend be appointed Minister of Marine and Fisheries, although he may be perfectly capable in a political sense of occupying the position my hon. friend occupies to-day, will my hon. friend say that such a man should be vested with the enormous powers of sitting as a court or sitting as a tribunal to try these offences, and not only of condemning these pilots to a fine but also to imprisonment, and condemning them to lose their branch or their license for the rest of their days ? Now I have no objection to my hon. friend taking the powers which he himself says it is his intention, or the intention of the department, to take, that is, of doing the things which he has mentioned. But I call the attention of the members of the committee to this fact, that the Bill which my hon. friend has now before the House is far reaching in its effects, it is most important, it is one of the most important Bills probably that will come before this House affecting the interests of a large class of people, people who have just as much right to the protection of this committee and of this House as any other class of men in the country. Would my hon. friend wish to try such offences as these bv a tribunal composed of an ordinary justice of the peace, for instance, an ordinary police magistrate, who knows nothing of navigat'on, who knows nothing about the risks these men

run, and nothing about the handling of ships 7 Will my hon. friend say that is right. If my hon. friend will confine the terms of his measure within the explanations which he gave to this committee, well and good. But if my hon. friend says that he is going to give himself by this law the powers which are to-day vested under the Revised Statutes of Canada in the pilotage authority of the district of Quebec, then I enter my most solemn protest, and I must say that this law will certainly not pass until I have had an opportunity of getting it amended.


Mr. GEOFFRION.: I do not quite agree with the hon. gentleman (Mr. Casgrain) who has just taken his seat. In interpreting this Bill he seems to think that the hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries will be placed in the position of being the sole judge. The hon. gentleman knows that the pilotage authorities in Montreal and Quebec consult with some of the pilots. They avail themselves of the experience of two or three or more of the pilots. Any pilots who have a knowledge of navigation and who are experienced may be consulted by the pilotage authorities.


Charles Eusèbe Casgrain: Will my hon. friend (Mr. Geoffrion) allow me ? My hon. friend is absolutely astray iii so far as the pilotage district of Quebec is concerned. The board is composed by law of the harbour commissioners of Quebec and the president of the pilots is one of the members of the board. The composition of the board is fixed by law and you cannot take in any more pilots.


Mr. GEOFFBION.: Very well, but does the hon. gentleman pretend that they have not the right to consult any of the pilots?


Charles Eusèbe Casgrain: Decidedly I do say so.


Christophe Alphonse Geoffrion: I have known instances in Montreal and Quebec where they have consulted three or four of the pilots. The pilotage authority is frequently composed of men who have no experience whatever. They are merchants in Quebec and they generally consult with pilots, with men of experience and with lawyers ? I think it is proper that the authority in regard to pilotage should be vested in the Minister of Marine and Fisheries. If anything important occurs is the Minister of Marine and Fisheries not the proper person to see that a remedy is provided ? In the same way if anything goes wrong in the courts in any province of the Dominion, the Minister of Justice sees that a proper remedy is provided.


Robert Laird Borden: The analogy which my hon. friend (Mr. Geoffrion) suggests works out in this way that if you brought all the courts of the country under the authority of the Minster of Justice he would try everything himself ?


Victor Geoffrion: Not at all. I understand that this Bill means that the Minister of Marine and Fisheries will be the authority to whom we shall apply if any of the boards, at Quebec, Halifax. St. John and Montreal are doing anything wrong.


Mr. HAGGART.: He has the right himself to try cases. He supersedes the boards.


Victor Geoffrion: Yes, but he has the power to consult with the boards themselves. He has the right to consult the pilots just the same as the boards have. That is the way I understand the Bill. It reads as follows :
Notwithstanding anything in the Pilotage Act, the Governor in Council may, when it appears to him to be in the interest of navigation, appoint the Minister of Marine and Fisheries to be the pilotage authority for any pilotage district, or for any part thereof ; and the minister shall thereupon supersede the then existing pilotage authority for that district or part of a district.
Does it really mean that the minister shall be himself the pilotage authority sitting as a judicial authority ?


John Graham Haggart: Yes.


Charles Eusèbe Casgrain: Yes.


Robert Laird Borden: He is over every person ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: No.


Victor Geoffrion: The functions of the pilotage authorities in Quebec and Montreal are divided. In addition to the pilotage authority they have judicial powers. Perhaps I am not interpreting this Bill as it should be interpreted, but I think that the hon. minister by this Bill does not take it upon himself to sit alone as a judicial authority.
Mr. TALBO'T. In answer to the objections that my hon. friend from Montmorency (Mr. Casgrain) has raised against the actual proposition of my hon. friend the Minister of Marine and Fisheries I may tell my hon. friend from Montmorency that I am somewhat interested in this Bill from the fact that a great number of the pilots of Quebec live in my county.


Charles Eusèbe Casgrain: How many V


Mr. TALBOT.: The only objection that the pilots of Quebec have to the change of authority is. and I had a conversation with the president yesterday about it-he was in Ottawa-that under the new authority probably the pilots of Quebec will not be treated with so much leniency as they are now. That is their only fear. I do not think my hon. friend can name one member of the harbour commission of Quebec outside of the president of the corporation of pilots, who is an ex-officio member of the board, who knows anything about pilotage or about the river St. Lawrence.


Robert Laird Borden: I do not know how it is in Quebec, but in the maritime provinces I think the boards are composed partly of merchants and partly of men who have practical experience. I can recall that at the present time at least, two men, perhaps three, on the board of pilot commissioners in Halifax are retired master mariners of great experience. X think this is a practice which prevails in the lower provinces almost universally. But. referring for a moment to the observations of my hon. friend from Chambly and Vercheres (Mr. Geoffrion) I wish to say that it does not seem to me that there can be any doubt as to the meaning of this amendment.
The Governor in Council may, when it ap-pejrs to him to he in the interest of navigation, appoint the Minister of Marine and Fisheries to be the pilotage authority for any pilotage district, or for any part thereof ; and the minister shall thereupon supersede the then existing pilotage authority for that district or part of a district.
Can there be any doubt about the meaning of that ? The pilotage authority has functions of different characters. It lias administrative functions ; it has judicial functions. In respect to every function it can exercise under the law it is to be superseded by the minister under the terms of this statute. I do not think my hon. friend will disagree with that proposition. I do not see how he can disagree. Is that a wise provision to make in regard to every pilotage authority throughout Canada ? My hon. friend the Minister of Marine and Fisheries has made an argument about one pilotage district-the Saguenay district-about which I profess to know very little, but as to the other pilotage authorities in Canada we have heard no word from the hon. gentleman beyond this that he says he is taking this power as a matter of precaution because these pilotage authorities may make some rules or regulations that are not wise, or that they may refuse to carry out rules and regulations that have Been made and approved and that are wise and should be carried out. In the first place, as far as the rules and regulations are concerned, my distinct recollection of the Pilotage Act is. that these rules and regulations must be approved by the Governor in Council or by the department-I think by the Governor in Council


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: By the Governor in Council.


Robert Laird Borden: Before they have any force whatever. Therefore, in that respect the public are amply safeguarded by that provision. In so far ns the other part of the hon. gentleman's argument is concerned. namely, that, the pilotage authorities may not carry out the law. the Governor in Council has ample authority if they do not carry out the law. The Governor in Council can dismiss them and ap-


Onésiphore Ernest Talbot: point others in their places. He can call upon them, in the first place, to carry out the law and if they refuse he can take either one or other of these remedies. Therefore, there does not seem to me to be any occasion for the enactment of a law of this character and I do not think the hon. minister professes to have given any reason for the enactment of the proposed amendment except in so far as it may have application to the Saguenay district as to which I do not profess to have any information because I do not know what the facts may be.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: The Bill will only have application where it is necessary to apply it. The board of the port of Montreal last year, with the consent of the business people, the shipping interests, the harbour commissioners and the pilots came here last year and got this Act put through parliament. Chapter 48, 3 Edward VII., vests the pilotage authority of Montreal in the Minister of Marine and Fisheries. If the business people of Montreal believe that such a law should be passed, surely their opinion must be of some value. The business people of Quebec have insisted that another clause be added to the Bill, so as to take from the pilotage authority <jf the district of Quebec the supervision of the Saguenay river. The reason they give is, that some of the pilots that have been assigned to the Saguenay were absolutely in-comxietent. Let me ask : is the country not generally interested in having the law applied in' such a way as to offer the necessary guarantees for safe navigation ? Why should not authority be given to the Minister of Marine and Fisheries to act as a pilotage authority ? The great objection raised by my hon. friend (Mr. Casgrain) is that the Minister of Marine and Fisheries will subsitute himself for the pilotage authority, and for the men who formerly held this investigation, but the hon. gentleman loses sight of chapter 64. the Act of 1901, under which the Minister of Marine and Fisheries has authority to hold investigations and to delegate his powers.


Charles Eusèbe Casgrain: There is nothing about the pilots in that Act.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: It makes no difference whether the pilot is tried under the Shipping Casualties Act, or by men chosen by the harbour commissioners of Quebec or St. John or elsewhere.


Charles Eusèbe Casgrain: The difference is that a pilot cannot be tried under the Act to which the minister has referred.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: The investigation takes place under that Act, and everything is done to ascertain who is responsible for the accident.


Charles Eusèbe Casgrain: It has nothing at all to do with the pilots.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: Surely it is in tlie interests of the country, that pilots should pass such an examination under proper authority, as will guarantee that they are capable of discharging their duties. I do not see what harm there is in the pilotage authority being put in the hands of the Department of Marine and Fisheries. Indeed I believe it will afford better protection to the shipping interests.


Charles Eusèbe Casgrain: My hon. friend from Bellechasse (Mr. Talbot) has said that one of the reasons why some of the pilots are opposed to this Bill, is that the new pilotage authority would not be so lenient as the existing body. Well, I have had considerable experience in practising before these pilotage courts ; I have been the solicitor for the pilots for the last twenty years, and I know that the complaint is not that the pilotage authority in Quebec is too lenient, but rather quite the reverse. The pilotage authority in the district of Quebec is composed of nominees of the government-and the government should appoint men who know something about the business-and also of a number of gentlemen who are elected by the shipping interests of Quebec. For the most part these gentlemen know a good deal about shipping ; some of them know a good deal about navigation, and they are competent to try such eases as come before them. In addition to that, they have the president of the Corporation of Pilots to throw light upon any question on which they are adjudicating. Let me point out that the Minister of Marine, who is not yet the lord high admiral of the Canadian navy does not know much about navigation, and although he has taken several trips on the ' Eureka ' and the * Frontenac,' he is not by any means a past master in the science of navigation. For my part, I would be loath to go before him with a trial in which a pilot was accused of neglect in navigating his ship. The Minister of Marine is not only not a fresh water sailor even, but he is not a sailor at all, and if the existing pilotage authority in Quebec is not competent to try these cases, surely the Minister of Marine cannot set up a claim to competency. The minister quoted the Shipping Casualties Act of 1901, but it ought be needless to tell him that that Act has nothing to do with pilots at all. The Act is simply for the purpose of instituting inquiries and investigations into shipping casualties, to determine whether the master, or the engineer, or one of the officers of the ship has been guilty of any neglect or error in navigation. The law respecting pilots provides how they shall be tried and their trial is a very serious matter. It is held as in a court; counsel represent the pilots and the government, evidence is taken under oath and the proceedings are just the same as in any court of the land. It is so serious that the law 130
has allowed an appeal to the Superior Court on any decision rendered by the pilotage authority. The offences which a pilot may be guilty of range all the way from being intoxicated while on duty, to stranding a ship, and the penalty is a minimum of $20 fine up to the taking away of the pilot's license during his lifetime. '
My hon. friend should limit the Bill to the interpretation which he put upon it when he gave the explanations to the committee. We on this side of the House, I particularly, have no intention of doing anything which would be contrary to the wishes of the business men of Montreal or Quebec ; but it cannot be their wish to vest in my hon. friend, the political head of a department, the powers which the Revised Statutes of Canada give to the pilotage authorities, that is, the trial of offences of which the pilots may be charged. I would, therefore, move .
That the following words be added at the end of section 1 :-
Provided that nothing in this Act shall empower or authorize the Minister of Marine and Fisheries to sit as a tribunal for the trial of offences of which pilots may be accused before the pilotage authorities.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: I have no objection at all to the amendment, because it has never been my intention to sit as a tribunal in these cases. The minister is incompetent to do so ; besides, in cases involving the cancellation of the certificate, there are always assessors appointed who are mor'e competent to act.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to, Bill reported, read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 101) to amend the Steamboat Inspection Act, 189S (Mr. Prefontaine), read the second time, and House went into committee thereon.	[DOT]
On section 1,
1. Subsection 1 of section 6 of the Steamboat inspection Act, 1898, is amended by adding thereto the following paragraph :-
(g.) for the inspection of the machinery and equipment of steamboats propelled by gas, fluid, naphtha, electricity, or any other mechanical or chemical power, and in the case of such vessels for making such changes in forms A and B of the second schedule hereto as he deems advisable.
Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: This is the only7 section in this Bill. Section 6 of the Act enumerates the different things for which the Governor in Council may make rules ; and after the passing of this Bill, the power to make rules for this class of vessels will be included. Heretofore vessels of this description have not been subject to inspection, and we have had numerous demands on the part of people who wanted to run these boats for passenger service to have them inspected


REVISED EDITION1 COMMONS
[Stage Direction]
and given tlie proper certificate, so that they couid offer the necessary guarantee to the public.
Edward Frederick Clarke: The inspection will be only made of boats carrying passengers ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: Yes, and when required.


John Graham Haggart: There is no change in the fees ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: There are no fees.
Mr. HAGGAR'T. There are fees ; and that is just the difference between the American system and_ours. In the United States an inspection of the most competent kind is made and a certificate is given without the payment of any fees at all ; but the genera! complaint here-I do not know whether it is justified or not-is that fees have to be paid. Why not place our inland marine in the same position as the American ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: Under the Act th>
matter is left entirely to the Governor in Council.


James Clancy: A question came before the hon. gentleman's department only a few months ago with regard to the licensing and inspecting of naphtha launches. The inspectors refused to make an inspection on the ground that they had no authority and there seems to be a grave doubt in the minds of these gentlemen whether naphtha launches should be used at all or not. The attitude assumed by the inspector seems to indicate that they felt they were independent of the law and that is a question which ought to be handled with a firm hand. As it is now, naphtha launches may carry thousands and thousands of passengers without any license from the inspector, but if they do not make any charge they may be death traps without interference simply because there is no charge. The department must be prepared to deal with this firmly, and either absolutely forbid boats of the kind to carry passengers for hire or without hire. I do not pretend to say whether these boats should be permitted to carry passengers or not, but if they are not fit to carry passengers they are not fit to be used for carrying private parties, and to carry a greater number of persons under such conditions than they would if they were carrying them for hire. I do not see any provision made to cover the case I have stated.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: If I understand
the hon. gentleman he is drawing the attention of the government to the fact that they are not all inspected ?


James Clancy: None of them are.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: Under the law
adopted last year, chapter Go, it was provided that certain classes of these boats should be inspected when they were over three tons. Under this amendment it is provided Mr. PREFONTAINE.
that any class of these boats, whether over or under three tons shall be subject to inspection if they are to be used for passengers. The hon. gentleman thinks we should go further than that. I shall consult with my officials who are more familiar with this question than I am, because the law is applied by a board of examiners and inspectors, and I will see whether it is possible to frame such regulations as would subject all vessels, whether employed for passenger or freight purposes, to inspection.


James Clancy: I am not urging a general inspection. The inspectors have declared that they did not think such boats should be examined and licensed to carry passengers, because they thought them dangerous. If that be true, why should any class of boats using such power be permitted to carry passengers even without hire if they are so dangerous as to make it inadvisable to license them to carry passengers 1 I do not wish to be understood that every naphtha launch should be brought under inspection whether it carries passengers or not, but I want to point out that there are many places in Canada in which a ferry is necessary where a naphtha launch is useful and where a more expensive service cannot be maintained. For instance along the river St- Cdaira, there are |iittle villages and towns on both sides of the river, one upon the American and the other upon the Canadian shore. Those are international waters so that we have no power under the municipal nor has the province any power to legislate in such a matter and therefore they cannot be brought under the control of the municipalities. If, in such cases you enforce all the conditions of a steam-ferry and require a certificated engineer, &c., the result will be that such a ferry service could not be maintained on account of the expense. A cheap service is essential. There are boats running to-day without inspection. The department has often given permission to these boats to run contrary to the law. I am persuaded myself that the department has a right to inspect and give certificates. These boats are running now without any certificates and I think it is about time that we should put an end to this.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: The Bill will deal with it.


James Clancy: No.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: It provides that regulations can be made for the inspection of these boats. It has the effect of adding a new clause ' G ' to section 6, of the Steamship Inspection Act, 1898. In section 0 the following enumeration is made :
6. The Governor in Council may make rules and regulations for the following purposes, viz.:
(a.) for the testing of boilers and all matters connected with the construction and working thereof;

(b.) for the inspection of safety valves and boiler cocks and all matters connected with the construction and working thereof ;	.
(c.) for the inspection of hulls and equipment of steamboats ;
(d.) respecting boats and life-preservers, fire buckets, axes and lanterns and other life-saving appliances to be carried by steamboats or by other vessels mentioned in this Act ;
(e.) respecting the qualifications necessary to entitle a person to an engineer's certificate;
(f.) requiring steamboats to carry chemical or other fire extinguishers, and prescribing the number of such fire extinguishers to be carried by steamboats of different sizes and classes respectively.
Now, we add :
(g.) for the inspection of the machinery and equipment of steamboats propelled by gas, fluid, naphtha, electricity, or any other mechanical or chemical power, and in the case of such vessels for making such changes in forms A and B of the second schedule hereto as he deems advisable.
Under this amendment, special regulations will have to be prepared for the inspection of the class of boats which are enumerated here, but are not enumerated in the statute of 1898, or in the amendments which have since been made.


James Clancy: It is evident I have been unable to make the point clear to the hon. gentleman (Mr. Prefontaine). I am not dealing with the point that a smaller class of boats may come under this new section. The point I am making is that, the authority given last session to inspect a larger class of boats is not acted upon by his inspectors. And, as inspectors will not give these boats the inspection and certificate necessary for the carrying of passengers, they are prevented from engaging in this trade. The hon. gentleman has to deal with the wisdom or the prejudice of his inspectors-I dp not attempt to characterize it myself.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: I will undertake to look into it.


James Clancy: Will the hon. gentleman tell us why his inspectors have refused ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: I am not aware that they have done so.


James Clancy: The hon. gentleman might have been aware of it months ago. His deputy certainly was. This is not a new case, but has been standing for many months.
I know personally of the cases of naphtha launches which, under the law of last session are entitled to inspection and, if they are found to be safe boats, to certificate. Yet, they are rejected upon the mere ground that they are propelled by naphtha or gasoline. That has gone on for so long that I think we ought to have some explanation why the hon. gentleman has allowed it to stand still in the department.
Mr, PREFONTAINE. I will make the necessary inquiries.
130|


James Clancy: Will the hon. gentleman make them so that we can have the explanation before this Bill passes ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: I will make the inquiries. But that need not prevent the Bill from passing, because this does not affect the Bill.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Why not allow the Bill to stand until the inquiries have been made ?


James Clancy: I would like the Bill to be allowed to stand until we can get the information.


George Taylor: May I ask the hon. minister if he is going to compel the owners of gasolene launches who keep them in boat liveries for hire by the hour or day to have them inspected, why he does not include automobiles also Automobiles are propelled by the very same machinery and the very same fluid as these launches are. You can go to a livery stable here and hire an automobile at any time. I do not see why he makes the Bill apply to one and not to the other. If he is going to touch it at all, he should grapple wTith the whole question. He already has a provision enabling him to deal with three-ton boats. Yet he proposes to deal in this Bill wTith gasolene launches of, s'madler Size that gentlemen have for their own use or that are kept for hire by those who carry on boat liveries.


Mr. OSLER.: The point raised by the hon. member for Lanark (Mr. Haggart) I think, is one quite worthy of consideration -the inspection fees charged Canadian boats. The Americans inspect free as I understand it. They even inspect Canadian boats free. I understand that an American boat inspected in Canada is inspected free. So, the only boats on the lakes on w'hich an inspection fee is charged are Canadian boats inspected by Canadian inspectors. That is a discrimination against Canadian boats, not very serious, it is true, but one that Canadian shipowners have objected to and that they look upon as one of the small handicaps to their business which should not be permitted when their rivals, the American boats, are inspected free.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: We will look into the matter and see what can be done.


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER.: Carried.


James Clancy: No, no. I understand the minister will allow this Bill to remain in committee, because to pass this clause may make a necessary reconstruction impossible. I hope the hon. gentleman will not press1 the Bill through committee until he has been able to look into the matter to which I have referred because it is a matter of great concern.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: I-do not think it will involve anything of the sort, because,


James Clancy: But the hon. gentleman's own inspectors seem to entertain doubt whether they have authority. If there is any lack of authority he has not supplied it by this Bill.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: I am perfectly satisfied that there is the necessary authority. If it is necessary to give special and rigid instructions to the inspectors to act according to law, I will do so. If it is necessary to issue an Order in Council,
I will do so. But it would not affect this Bill in any way.


James Clancy: I cannot help thinking the hon. gentleman is showing an undue desire to press the Bill in the face of what seems to be a grave difficulty which is in contrast with the rather tardy manner in which this matter has been dealt with in his own office. The hon. gentleman seems to show more zeal in this than in the administration of the affairs of his department. The hon. gentleman is aware of the difficulty I have stated, or, if not he ought to be.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: I am not aware of anything of the kind. I have never heard of such complaints until now.


James Clancy: Then, in view of the fact that this is the first time the hon. gentleman has heard the complaints, does it not suggest itself to him that it would be a good ihing to delay for a day or two ? It is important that we should start right. The law may be defective all the way through. I see no reason we should not allow the Bill to remain in committee. There is a general desire not to annoy the hon. gentleman, but we wish to use this opportunity to make the Bill as perfect as possible.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: If the hon. gentleman insists I will consent, I have no special object to serve by pressing this Bill to-day. We can pass it some other day. I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again, and in the meantime, I will procure the information.
Progress reported.


NAVIGATION OF CANADIAN WATERS.
[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 112) to amend the Act respecting the navigation of Canadian waters.-(Mr. Prefontaine) was read the second time, and House went into Committee thereon.
Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: 


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: This Bill is a very short one. and its object is to remedy an unsatisfactory state of affairs which exists on the lakes. Some years ago, I think it was in 1890, some international rules were adopted at a meeting that took place in Belgium, at which marine interests all over the world were represented, and by which certain rules were drawn up and adopted as the rules of navigation. However, the Americans navigating on the lakes did not conform to these rules, they have maintained their own rules since then, and in consequence a good deal of misunderstanding has been created amongst navigators on the lakes. The Marine Association 'has come to the conclusion that it would be better to agree with the Americans and adopt the same rules they have as regards that portion of our inland waters. This Bill is a result of the representations made by the Canadian Marine Association.


Charles Eusèbe Casgrain: I think the object of the Bill is very good. But I would ask my hon. friend to point out by whom the regulations mentioned in this subsection which he desires to add to the Act, were passed.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: By the Governor in Council under chap. 79 of 49 Yic.


Charles Eusèbe Casgrain: 
Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: Well, we consulted the Department of Justice on the question, and the opinion of the department was to the effect that it would be better to have a special law, to get special authorization by statute to amend these regulations. Because by section 14 of chap. 79, 49 Yic., it is provided :
If Her Majesty, acting on the joint recommendation of the admiralty and the Board of Trade, hy Order in Council annuls or modifies any of the regulations for preventing collisions on navigable waters, which, by order of Her Majesty in Council of the fourteenth day of August, 1879, were substituted for those heretofore in force for like purposes in the United Kingdom, or makes new regulations in addition thereto or in substitution therefor, the Governor in Council may, from time to time, make corresponding changes as respects Canadian waters, in the regulations contained in the second section of this Act or any that may be substituted for them,-or may suspend them or any of them, and make others in their stead,-or may revise all or any of the regulations in the Act of the parliament of Canada passed in the thirty-first year of Her Majesty's reign, and intituled ' An Act respecting the Navigation of Canadian Waters,' as he deems best for ensuring the correspondence of the. regulations of Her Majesty in Council with those of the Governor in Council.


Charles Eusèbe Casgrain: I may be mistaken, but from bearing what the hon. gentleman has just read, I should think that this Bill was not necessary. I do not know whether we should spend any time here passing useless legislation. But really it seems to me, from the language of this section 14 that the Governor in Council have a right to change any regulations which have been heretofore, in existence, to alter, amend or supersede them by other regulations. I may be mistaken, but that seems to me to be the meaning of section 14.


Mr. PREFONT  AINE@: There seems to be a doubt whether we can amend these regulations, unless they are made to correspond with the rules and regulations adopted by the Admiralty and the Imperial Board of Trade. So in order to make the law perfects clear, we thought it would be better to insert a special clause providing that, even if they do not agree with the regulations made by the admiralty, these rules may be passed. Besides, they are perfectly independent of the others.
Bill reported, read a third time and passed.



SUPPLY-MR. D. J. O'DONOGHUE.

['No, and as the Minister of Justice is not here we will not proceed with liis Bills.\nOn motion of Mr. Fisher, House adjourned at 11.30 p.m.\t[DOT]', 'Fbiday, June 3, 1904.']
Right Hon.   S@: FIELDING (Minister of Finance) moved that the House again go into Committee of Supply.


George Taylor: 

[Stage Direction]
The Labour-Liberal party.

[Stage Direction]
It was
Moved by Mr. F. McB. Young, seconded by Roderick McRae, ' That this meeting of the Liberal-Labour party heartily endorse Mr. Ralph Smith, M.P., as a candidate for the Dominion House in the forthcoming elections.'
Mr. Smith then took the floor and laid down his platform. Mr. Smith said that:
At that time he was elected as a labour man with strong liberal leanings and to-day he accepted the same position, and if elected would go to the house to give 'especial attention to labour matters and a general support to the liberal party as long as it continued in the path it was following at present. He had only been in the house a short time but was sure the results had been fully equal to anything accomplished in any equal amount of time before. He asked them to judge him on his record and if they were satisfied with it to vote for him, and if not vote against him, but he was confident a fair representation of the ease to the electors would result in again successfully returning him to the House. Mr. Smith's remarks were greeted with loud applause and at their close a committee composed of Messrs. F. McB. Young, Harry Shepherd and Richard Both was appointed to act in conjunction with the officer to call the party together whenever the date of election was announced.
A motion to forward the preceding resolution to Senator Templeman and Sir Wilfrid Laurier was passed.
Then Mr. O'Donoghue was called upon.
James Clancy: Who is Mr. O'Donoghue ?


George Taylor: He is the fair-wage officer of the Labour Department.


James Clancy: Drawing a salary ?


George Taylor: Drawing a salary of $1,500 a year and $1,200 for travelling expenses.


James Clancy: That is the end of him.


George Taylor: Mr. O'Donoghue said :
He was not present as a party politician. 01 course, he had strong views on politics that he would never swallow for any position any government could ever give him, but at the same time he knew what was due to his position and would refrain from talking as he otherwise might.
* Of course,' went on Mr. O'Donoghue, ' there are some, people who are only sorry that they are not in my office who say I am a political heeler. Well now, I want to tell you about those people. What they say I am they would be if they were in my place.' This remark was made very quietly but in a rich brogue that made it very effective and the crowd greeted it with great laughter and applause.
Mr. O'Donoghue said he was glad to be present to-night no matter what the consequences might be to pay a tribute of respect and praise to his friend, Mr. Smith. He had many opportunities to watch his movements in Ottawa and if he had not deserved the compliment he was about to pay, they nor any other men nor the government nor all the money in Canada could prevail on him to open his mouth.
There couldn't be a better gauge of a man's influence in the House than the manner in which he is treated while making a speech. Sometimes a member will be speaking "whose speech wull occupy column after column in the newspaper, but in the House, out of 200 members, only about six would be listening to him. Of this six three would be asleep and the other three would be talking earnestly to each other. (Great laughter).


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.


George Taylor: Yes, hon. gentlemen can laugh but there is a civil servant drawing $1,500 of the people's money who goes ont to British Columbia and tells the people there that when some members are speaking in this House there are only six members present, whereas, the fact is that you, Mr. Speaker, could not occupy the chair if there were only six members present. That man goes out and tells lies about the House of Commons. He says that there are members who make long speeches that fill columns and columns of * Hansard ' when there are only six members present and three of them asleep. He continues :
Such a member, said Mr. O'Donoghue, had no more effect than a dog has when he sits on his hind legs and barks at the moon. But when a member is regarded with respect by his fellow members rises the scene was different. The side door is opened and the members flow in from all quarters of the House to listen to that man. I was in the House of Commons one day and Smith rose to speak. The House was almost empty at the time, but in a few moments every member within the precincts of the House was in his place. The premier and cabinet ministers who were sitting partly with their backs to Mr. Smith turned half around and with all the others were all attention to the words that fell from the lips of your representative and ours. (Applause). He was speaking on the Chinese question. (Applause). And I was in the gallery. Well now. if you want to kick up any racket there you'll get thrown out, but I never had Mr. TAYi-uR.
such a time in my life to keep quiet. I grabbed the desk in front of me and held on with both hands to keep them from clapping together. I was so proud and pleased to see the House of Commons and premier and cabinet listening so attentively to the representative of labour. Well, I needn't tell you what the result was. That speech was so effective that a $500 tax was imposed against the Chinese instead of $10D. (Applause). Had it not been for Mr. Smith you would have been put off with more promises and nothing else but that speech settled it and the increased tax went on.
He made the people believe that there was a special desk put in the gallery for this 'official Of the Labour Department, and that he had to hold on to both sides of it to prevent him from clapping the member from Nanaimo, who was speaking on the Chinese question.
Here is Mr. O'Donoghue who is paid by th'e people of Canada $1,500 a year besides travelling expenses : here he is making a special trip to be present at the nomination of this labour Liberal candidate, and having no other business out there only expecting that there would be an election. Here was Mr. O'Donoghue a public official, supporting the member for Nanaimo who had declared his platform to be that if he were returned to parliament he would support the present government. Here was Mr. O'Donoghue, an official of the government who was supposed to take no part in politics, speaking on the hustings in favour of a government supporter. It is on a par with the patron business. We had a specimen here to-day appointed by the Minister of Trade and Commerce at l$l,200 a year and $1,200 travelling expenses in the person of Mr. Haycock a leader of the patron movement which was organized by the Postmaster General and the Minister of Trade and Commerce to try to injure the Conservative party:	Where are these patron leaders
to-day ? Mr. Currie and Mr. Haycock, and two or three others of them are employed at large salaries and large travelling expenses. It is the same way with Mr. O'Donoghue and several other officials of the Labour Department. The Kingston ' Whig ' said that no person could prove that Mr. O'Donoghue had ever interfered in politics, and it charged me with unfairly attacking Mr. O'Donoghue when I brought his name before the House. I bring this matter to the attention of the House to-day, so that the people of the country may know how the officials of this government are acting. I bring the matter before the House to prove to the editor of the Kingston ' Whig ', who is a member of the local legislature and supporter of Mr. Ross that Mr. O'Donoghue is a political partisan, and that like Mr. Jos. Haycock and others he is drawing money from the public treasury to go around the country taking part in politics just as Mr. Haycock gets his salary, and expenses to go around the country trying to make the

farmers believe that he is inspecting binder twine.


Hr. RALPH SMITH (Vancouver).: Mr. Speaker


Charles Eusèbe Casgrain: I hope O'Donoghue is not in the gallery.


Mr. BENNETT.: Send out and tell him Mr. Smith is talking.


Ralph Smith: The hon. member (Mr. Taylor) has complained that the Kingston ' Whig ' said that he could not prove any accusation against Mr. O'Donoghue. I think the House and the country will now be able to endorse just what the Kingston ' Whig ' said. If the hon, gentleman had intended to verify the statement of the Kingston ' Whig, ' his effort could not have been more successful. I think I can show the House that the hon. member (Mr. Taylor) is absolutely ignorant of the facts of the case. The hon. member says that Mr. O'Donoghue was sent to British Columbia to assist in a political campaign. What authority has he for that statement ?


George Taylor: Mr. O'Donoghue was out in that country.


Ralph Smith: Was he sent out for that purpose 1


George Taylor: Every one expected then that the elections were coming on, and Mr. O'Donoghue was there for the express purpose of asking the Liberal labour party to send men here to support the present government. There was no strike on in British Columbia at the time, and he had no other earthly business out there.


Ralph Smith: The hon. gentleman is very reckless in his statements.


George Taylor: I can back them up all the same.


Ralph Smith: That is more than you have done up to the present time. I want to state that I had nothing to do with Mr. O'Donoghue being in British Columbia. Mr. O'Donoghue was sent to British Columbia as a fair-wage officer to prepare schedule of fair wages for public works in British Columbia.


George Taylor: On the 27th of December. Mr, RALPH SMITH. That is the business of the department ; it is not my business ; I know nothing about it. I tell the hon. gentleman that so far as I am concerned I knew nothing about Mr. O'Donoghue going there ; I did not know that he intended coming there ; he had nothing to do in connection with that meeting except that he accidently happened to be there when it was held, and the organization of the meeting for my nomination-I fancy that is what troubles the hon. gentleman- was provided for before any one in British Columbia knew that Mr. O'Donoghue was
going to be in that country. I make this statement as a member of this House. The statements in Mr. O'Donoghue's speech prove conclusively that all the connection he had with that meeting was his desire for the personal interests of his friend, myself. He was in town, not as a consequence of the meeting but he rvas at the meeting as a consequence of being in the town.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Ralph Smith: Mr. O'Donoghue had prepared his schedule for the public works in the province of British Columbia, before that meeting was held, and he had forwarded the schedule to Ottawa and was taking his holidays which he was entitled to as he had not had any holidays for two years previously.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Why didn't he come home then ?


Ralph Smith: He was taking his holidays in British Columbia. The records of the department will show that the schedules were filled up and forwarded, and that he was an absolutely free man so far as being an officer of this government was concerned. Do hon. gentlemen object to a position of that kind ? Why, you might as well say that the officials of the Agriculture Department who are sent to British Columbia to lecture to the farmers, are political agents.


Mr.   JAS@: CLANCY (Bothwell . Will the hon. gentleman say that Mr. O'Donoghue was in British Columbia at that time because he was taking his holidays ?


Ralph Smith: He had done the work of his department and had made arrangements to take three weeks holidays in British Columbia. I do not know that the matter needs any further explanation, because I think that the article which the hon. member (Mr. Taylor) read, perfectly justifies Mr. O'Donoghue and explains the thing as well as it is possible for me to do. I defy the hon. gentleman to show that Mr. O'Donoghue ever made a single reference to either of the two political parties in this parliament. He spoke only because of his personal connection with myself, and he never made a single reference to any politician in this House, nor to the political parties. Mr. O'Donoghue was taking his holidays ; his work was completed ; he wTas stopping with me ; and he went with me to that meeting, which was organized before he came to that province at all ; and as a consequence of being present, a labour man amongst labour men, he was asked to address the meeting. He did address the meeting, and I defy the hon. gentleman to prove that he made a single political reference in the whole of that address.


James Clancy: bon. gentleman is very innocent of the whole affair. Although Jlr. O'Donoghue slept under his roof and accompanied him to the meeting, he is not able to say that Mr. O'Donoghue was at that moment on leave of absence granted by the department. If he was, it made no difference. Mr. O'Donoghue took that occasion to slander every member of this House, because he did not refer to any one in particular. Was his statement false or true ? Does the hon. gentleman know whether Mr. O'Donoghue told the truth or not when in his presence he described the House of Commons as having only six members in it, and three of those asleep ? The hon. gentleman cannot escape the consequences of the statement made here this afternoon. Mr. O'Donoghue said :	' I am not a politician, but I have
my politics ; ' and what were they V He described the virtues of the Liberal party- there was no party like that party.


Ralph Smith: I would ask the hon. gentleman to give us an instance of what he said.


James Clancy: I am not here to amuse the hon. gentleman. He heard the statement that was read from a paper, I believe entirely friendly to the hon. gentleman himself, reporting Mr. O'Donoghue as having described the House of Commons in terms that no man should be permitted to use, because they are as false as false can be. The hon. gentleman knows that the statement made by Mr. O'Donoghue was false. I challenge him to rise in his place now and say that his description of the House of Commons was borne out.


Ralph Smith: I ask the hon. gentleman to prove his statement that Jlr. O'Donoghue spoke in favour of the Liberal party. Jlr. O'Donoghue never said a word in favour of any party. I am entitled to know where the hon. gentleman gets his information for making the statement that he did.


James Clancy: The hon. gentleman heard what was read.


Ralph Smith: I did not hear that read.


James Clancy: Jlr. O'Donoghue prefaced his remarks by saying in so many words :
' It will not do for me to talk politics here. I am a politician, but I will be careful and not talk much politics.' But he praised the party to which the hon. gentleman belongs. Is that not talking politics ?
Jlr. RALPH SJ11TH. A purely personal reference.


James Clancy: Is the hon. gentleman prepared to look wise enough to stand a eulogy of that kind, and at the expense of the whole House of Commons, including the right hon. the First Minister ? He is a pretty constant attendant here. Was he one of those who were asleep, or was he awake ?


James Clancy: 


Wilfrid Laurier: I was asleep, sure.


James Clancy: No, the right hon. gentleman was not asleep. I ask the right hon. First Jlinister, if the statement in that paper is true, does he think it a becoming or proper thing that an official, no matter what his position may be, who is paid to discharge the duties of his office free from any colour of serving one party more than the other, should be permitted to go about the country and appear at meetings on one side or the other-at a labour Liberal convention-and make statements of that kind ? This is not a matter which can be laughed out of court. I think the officials of this country should be protected so long as tlidy do not violate the trust placed in their hands. But the hon. gentleman's own friends have on more than one occasion, metaphorically speaking, taken off the heads of officials who had nothiug proven against them. I know an instance of a man having been dismissed because he was found driving in a buggy with a man who was putting up some bills. He had never spoken at a political meeting and was not accustomed to discuss political questions. He held a little office worth $400 a year at a customs outport. A conspiracy was hatched against him. and he was dismissed without being told why he was dismissed, without ever being given a hearing or being allowed to say a word in his own defence.


Jlr. CAJIPBELL.: Who was he ?


James Clancy: Jlr. Henry Roebuck, than whom there is not a more respectable man in Canada-a man who was never known to have said an offensive word privately or publicly of any political party. True, he* was a Conservative, and is to-day. That man was dismissed ; and yet here is an official, occupying a very important position, allowed to go about the country making statements of the kind quoted here to-day. This kind of thing undermines the very underpinning that can uphold a healthy public service. If public officials are to be permitted to go about the country doing that sort of thing, then we may just as well turn the officials loose. I ask the right hon. the First Jlinister if he does not think this is a matter which should be investigated-because I am prepared to do any person the justice of saying that a mere newspaper report should not be a sufficient ground for the dismissal of an official ? I ask him if the' statements and the action and the appearance of Jlr. O'Donoghue at that meeting, even as a friend of the hon. gentleman who sits for the riding, are found to be as represented, whether Jlr. O'Donoghue should not be dealt with accordingly ?


PERSONAL EXPLANATION.
Andrew B. Ingram: Jlr. Speaker. I do not rise for the purpose of

taking jiart in this discussion, but for the purpose of straightening out a matter that came up in this House yesterday and the day before yesterday, involving the veracity of three hon. members of this House. Although the hon. junior member for Halifax {Mr. Wm. Roche) is not in his place. I may say that I extended to that hon. gentleman to-day a courtesy which he forgot to extend to me yesterday. I wrote to the hon. the junior member for Halifax this morning, this letter :
Ottawa, June 2nd, 1904. William Roche, Esq., M.P.,
House of Commons.
Dear Mr. Roche,-Referring to the incident which occurred yesterday and the day before in the House concerning certain statements which you claim that the member for Lennox (Mr. Wilson) had made controverting some remarks of yours, I dsire to say that I am going to bring the matter up in the House this afternoon, and as a matter of courtesy I give you reasonable notice thereof.
Yours very truly,


A. B. INGRAM.
[Stage Direction]
* I may say that if the hon. gentleman (Mr. Roche) had given me any notice yesterday of his intention to bring before the House certain statements that I had made the *day before in connection with remarks that he had made about the hon. member for Lennox, I would not have considered the matter of sufficient importance to bring it before the House to-day. The question of the veracity of the statements made by hon. gentlemen on either side of this House is a very important and serious matter, and X take it that hon. gentlemen on the government side of the House will be as eager as lion, gentlemen on this side to uphold any hon. gentleman in this House who rises in his place and makes a statement of fact or a statement that he believes to be a statement of fact. I am sure that if any hon. gentleman so far forgets himself as to rise in his place simply for the purpose of interrupting an hon. gentleman and thereby gaining some party advantage for the moment by reason of an untruthful statement, such conduct on either side of the House should be condemned. That I take it is the disposition of hon. gentlemen on both sides of this House. The hon. junior member for Halifax (Mr. Roche) in his effort the day before yesterday to make a point against the leader of the opposition who was then discussing the question of immigration alluded to the fact that the leader of the opposition wa s using exactly the same language that he himself had used in a debate that occurred one year previous to that. He said that he used the same observations somewhat on the same line as the hon. leader of the opposition and that they were condemned by my hon. friend from Lennox (Mr. Wilson). My hon. friend from Lennox (Mr. Wilson) rose in his place and contradicted that statement, and I desire to give the contradiction, as X shall give the statement made by the junior member for Halifax, because I think this matter is of sufficient importance to be placed on record. The hon. the junior member for Halifax (Mr. Wm. Roche) made this statement :
Mr. Speaker,, you will remember that about this time last year there was a debate in this House on this very subject. On that occasion I made some observations somewhat in the line of the remarks of the hon. leader of the opposition this afternoon. I was taken to task on that occasion by my hon. friend from Lennox (Mr. Wilson) who denied to a considerable extent the statements I made.
Then the hon. gentleman (Mr. Wilson) rose in his place and replied as follows :
Uriah Wilson: Will the hon. member allow me to correct him. Instead of my making a speech after him, he spoke after I did and criticised me.
Now I take it that the object of my hon. friend (Mr. Wilson) in correcting the hon. the junior member for Halifax (Mr. Wm. Roche) was to show that he had not made statements making any allusion to the hon. the junior member for Halifax (Mr. Roche) by which he had controverted statements that that hon. gentleman had made. Now any hon. gentleman in this XIouse after an interruption of that kind would have accepted the statement made by the hon. member for Lennox (Mr. Wilson) as be is bound to do as a member, of this House. But what did he do instead. He replied by saying :
I am quite aware that my hon. friend, like a great many others in the House, after he has made the principal speech generally makes a few little speechlets.
What was the object in saying that ? It was that if the leading speech of my hon. friend did not contain these remarks that controverted the statement of the hon. the junior member for Halifax (Mr. Wm. Roche) the contradictions could be found in the speechlets. I had the record in my hands then as I have it now'. I rose in my place and I did not speak offensively. I used perfect parliamentary language in so far as I am able to express it and I said this :
I would remind the junior member for Halifax (Mr. Wm. Roche) that he is mistaken when he thinks that the hon. member for Lennox (Mr. Wilson) followed him last year with a speech or even with a speechlet.
Meaning by that that neither the speech nor the speechlets contained any remark that in any wray controverted anything that had been said by the junior member for Halifax (Mr. Wm. Roche), and I continued :
There is no record of either such speech or speechlet, hut I can tell him that the hon. gentleman who did follow' him and who criti-


COMMOXS
[Stage Direction]
cised his language very severely was the hon. member for Alberta (Mr. Oliver.)
Then the hon. junior member for Halifax (Mr. Roche) made this statement:
Speaking from memory I thihli my hon. friend did make the few observations I referred to or else it was the gentleman next him. I am not speaking by the book of course but from memory. The statement I made certainly was attacked afterwards by my hon. friend from Alberta (Mr. Oliver).
Now Sir, I am in duty bound, Mr. Speaker, having '.corrected the hon. gentleman to prove by the record that the statement I make in connection with the language used by my hon. friend is correct. We were discussing on July 14, 1903, a motion moved by the Hon. Mr. Sifton, Minister of the Interior :
That the House again go into Committee of Supply.
That is reported on page 6546 of the * Hansard ' of 1903. Mr. Wilson, if I may use his name, occupied the pages of ' Hansard ' from 6546 down to 6557 when Mr. Roche, the junior member for Halifax followed him. I see that this speech of Mr. Roche continues to page 6562. Twelve hon. gentlemen in this House spoke on that occasion after the junior member for Halifax and before we find a page with Mr. Wilson's name and previous to his remarks the' Hon. Mr. Sifton makes this statement at page 6609 :
The only persons we hear that suggestion from is the hon. member for Lennox and his friend the United States inspector, Mr. Watchorn. if my understanding of the hon. gentleman's argument is correct, it is in effect that we should make such an arrangement as would allow the officers of the United States to decide who should come into Canada.
M.\ WILSON. 1 made no such statement. What I said was that we ought to enter into an arrangement with them, that we ought to have as much to say about it as the Americans, aud that there should be a good understanding between the w o governments.
I wish to point out to you that there is not one statement in these words which refers in any way to the junior member for Halifax (Mr. Wm. Roche). Again Mr. Sifton says :
A medical inspector is stationed at each of the ports of landing, a competent medical inspect". They are all presided over by a general inspector of first-class professional attainments ; and we have no reason whatever to believe that it is necessary that their inspection should he revised by officers of the United States.
Uriah Wilson: When was the medical inspector appointed at Montreal ?


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: I cannot give the hon. gentleman the date.


Uriah Wilson: I may say that his deputy minister was before the committee as late as the 11th of June, and, according to his evidence, no one had been appointed there then.


Andrew B. Ingram: The hon. member for Lennox (Mr. Wilson) uttered nothing further up to the time the motion to go into supply was carried. Then the item of immigration, $110,000 was taken up for discussion. The hon. member for Lennox was discussing the item with the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Sifton). He spoke several times, making what the hon. junior member for Halifax call ' speechlets.' But in none of them is there a reference to the junior member for Halifax or to the arguments which he says the hon. gentleman controverted. The debate on the main motion and on the item of $110,000 was closed at page 6616 :


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House adjourned at 12.20 a.m. Wednesday.
Now, I wish to say and say it most positively that In the record I have quoted there is no contradiction of the statement made by the junior member for Halifax. 1 have here the volume of * Hansard ' containing 2429 pages between June 22nd and July 29th, 1903 ; and, Mr. Speaker, I will apologize to this House if the junior member for Halifax can put his finger on a single word or syllable in the debate' on this question in which the hon. member for Lennox controverted the statements he made as coming from the junior member for Halifax. What I wish to point out is this- that the junior member for Halifax, after having twenty-four hours to consider what he wished to say, came to this House yesterday and, without extending to me the courtesy that I have extended to him, brought up without a moment's notice, and without even having before him the record to prove his statement, this matter to which he had previously referred. I read from the report :

William Roche: I rise for the purpose of making a personal explanation. Yesterday, in the course of the debate, I stated that the hon. member for Lennox had controverted some remarks *which I had made. He said that he could'nt have done so, because he had spoken before me. I then said that that gentleman like some others in the House, after he had made his main speech, added a number of little speeches or speechlets.
Though the member for Lennox made certain speechlets, three before the motion carried, yet they had no bearing on the statements made by the hon. junior member for Halifax. No hon. gentleman on either side of the House would say that the junior member for Halifax strengthened his case by proving that the member for Lennox spoke when w-hat he said had nothing to do with the matter under discussion. He says, later on :
Now, my reputation being assailed and I have been directly contradicted without warrant, an explanation is due from the hon.

member (Mr. Ingram), and it that is the | method in which he pursues investigation, then if he contradicts me on some future occasion, he had better have his facts more under control of his volition.


Andrew B. Ingram: I still adhere to the statement I made yesterday, and the record will prove my statement to be correct. The Jion. gentleman from Lennox was afterwards' speaking on an item in the estimates, which affected the question of immigration.


William Roche: It was the same debate on his motion, and he afterwards reaffirmed his previous statement.


Andrew B. Ingram: The record will prove that the statement I made yesterday was correct, and if the record does not prove that, I am willing to apologize. I defy the hon. gentleman from Halifax (Mr. Roche) to read from the record exactly the statements made by the hon. gentleman from Lennox.


William Roche: My hon. friend said that the hon. gentleman (Mr. Wilson) made neither speech or speechlet, but the record shows that he made eight speeches.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Read.


William Roche: I have not the book here ; the gentlemen on the other side of the House have it.
Now, I do not wish to detain the House longer on this question.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Andrew B. Ingram: Do hon. gentlemen opposite dispute my statements in connection with this matter ? They cheered the junior member for Halifax when he made his statement. And I challenge any mem. her on the other side of the House, the junior member for Halifax included, to say that the record I have quoted is not correct. I have been a member of this House for a number of years, and I challenge any member on either side to put his finger on a single line of the record showing that I have ever interrupted any hon. gentleman for the purpose of making light of him and knowing that what I said was not in accordance with the facts. So, I am only giving to this matter the importance it deserves. I have not heen guilty of the conduct in debate that has been suggested, and God forbid that I should ever be guilty of it. But it appears that the hon. junior member for Halifax, unable to gain importance in this House in any other way, resorts to tactics of this kind in order to have a fling at his colleague (Mr. R. L. Borden) who is the honoured leader of the opposition. He must devise some other means, and he better acquainted with his facts when he rises to speak in this House. For my part, I condemn conduct of this kind. Had it not been for tbe request of my hon. friend (Mr. Wilson) who had already spoken and so could not speak again, I do not think I would have paid any attention to the statement of the junior member for Halifax. But, having made my statement I stand by it and I appeal to tbe records to support me.


Uriah Wilson: When the junior member for Halifax (Mr. Roche) was speaking on the occasion to which he referred, I interrupted him because I thought he was mistaken, that he had forgotten that I had spoken before him. He wished for some member from the west to corroborate his statement. The hon. member for Alberta (Mr. Oliver) followed him and I do not think he enjoyed very much the support he got from that hon. gentleman. Now I have taken the pains since this came up-though I may say, that had it ended with the first day I would have thought nothing more about it-to look over what the hon. gentleman said, to see if I had interrupted him during the debate. I substantiate everything that the hon. member from East Elgin (Mr. Ingram) has said. The hon. member (Mr. Roche) will fail to find that I interrupted his speech or made any reference to what he said. I have no fault to find with the hon. gentleman as a good citizen or as a pleasant member of this House ; hut he is noted more for being a little windy than for familiarity with subjects that he undertakes to deal with in debate. Now, I have never said so much about any man in this House. I desire to discuss matters on their merits and not to deal in personalities, because I think that is unwise and entirely uncalled for. As to the opinion the hon. gentleman expresses on the question of immigration, one has only to read the papers of to-day to see that we are getting a most undesirable class from abroad, people who are becoming a burden on a number of our cities. I think the time has come for the government to exercise the power it possesses to keep out this class of people. We all are enthusiastic believers in the capabilities of our country, and our population, up to this time, has been equal, I believe, to that of any other country in manliness, honesty, industry and the other great virtues. I hope the government will not allow outsiders to enter and become citizens who will he an undesirable addition to our population. This is all I want, and I think I am speaking the opinion of our friends on this side of the House. We are quite satisfied to get as large a population as possible into this country if it is of a desirable kind. But what we want especially is population of a good quality, we are not so anxious about the quantity as about the quality. I have only further to say, Mr. Speaker, that I think in this matter the hon. junior member for Halifax (Mr. Roche) is entirely mistaken, and if he is not wilfully mistaken, he certainly should not have spoken in the way he did without information.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House went into-Committee of Supply.
At six o'clock, committee took recess.
[Stage Direction]
After Eecess.
Committee resumed at eight o'clock.
Adulteration of food and fertilizers, and .the administration of the Act respecting fraudulent marking, $30,000.
Louis-Philippe Brodeur: I suppose it is not necessary for me to give full information on an item that we discussed the other night. This is a provision for carrying out the Act concerning the Adulteration of Pood, to pay food inspectors and analysts. The vote is the same as last year.


Richard Blain: Was there fraudulent marking of food in Canada to any extent last year ?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: I am informed by my [DOT]deputy that there has been a decrease.


Richard Blain: In what classes of goods?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: All sorts of foods, maple syrup, jellies, pepper, distilled liquors, &c. I may say that the beverage which seemed on the whole to be the purest is the product of the distillery.


Uriah Wilson: I would ask the minister if his officers go around to different places, or if samples are sent here to be analysed ?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: We have food inspectors who travel around the country to gather samples, and they are sent to be analysed. The inspectors are obliged to go all through the country and collect samples. They collect samples without acting upon any information given them.


Uriah Wilson: I understand that would be their general duty, but I presume if they had information from any particular locality that adulterated food was being sold he would send his officers.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Certainly, if we had information from any locality that impure food was being sold, it would be the duty of the department to send inspectors to collect samples of such food, and that would be done.


Richard Blain: How much was expended last year ?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: $19,841.3S were expended last year.
Minor revenues, $1,000 ; ordnance lands, $1,080.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: The vote for minor revenues is to pay some expenses in connection with granting licenses to ferries between the provinces and between the United States and Canada on the lakes. The Department of Inland Revenue is charged with that duty, and we have to, advertise for this purpose. I may say that the revenue collected from ferries is much larger than the amount we spend.


Uriah Wilson: 


Uriah Wilson: By what principle do these come under the Inland Revenue Department ?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: They have always been under the control of the Inland Revenue Department. There are two departments charged with the collection of revenue, the Customs and the Inland Revenue, and as ferries yield a revenue they are given to my department.


Uriah Wilson: How much was collected last year ?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: The ferries are not totalled up, but the collections are divided into three parts-bridges, ferries and sundries, and the total sum is $1,239.50.


Uriah Wilson: How much have you to pay out of that in the way of expenses ?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: The expenditure for the ferries is not totalled up, but an expenditure has been made as follows : American Bank Note Company for printing Yukon stamps, $766, and for printing law stamps, 8020.30, and then there were some express charges and some expense in connection with the advertising for tenders, which amount to about $50.


Uriah Wilson: When you gave us the revenue you gave us the bridges as well as the ferries. What is the expense in connection with the bridges ?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: I do not see any expense in so far as the bridges are concerned. The expense seems to be entirely in regard to the following ferries between Gower Point and Lapasse, the Quyon ferry, the ferry between Hawkesbuury and Grenville and the ferry between Cross Point and Campbellton. There are no expenses in connection with the bridges.-. We have simply collected money without having spent anything.


Uriah Wilson: You received some $1,200 and you expended more than you got.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: No, my hon. friend is mistaken.


Uriah Wilson: I understand you gave an amount of $1,239 as the revenue ? You have given $766, $020 and $50 as the expenditure which would make over $1,400.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: This amount of $766 has not been spenc on the ferries. It has been spent for Yukon law stamps. It has been charged to this vote, but it has not been spent for advertising in regard to the ferries.


Uriah Wilson: How would an ordinary man looking at the accounts be able to tell what this expenditure is for ? I think the accounts should be kept in such a way that any ordinary man going through the Blue-book would be able to tell what the revenue is taken from, and what it has been spent for.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: If my hon. friend will look at page K-25 of the Auditor General's Report, he will see everything explained there :
Minor revenues-expenditure, $1,507.81.
Out of that the sum lfl.394.3S has been spent for law and mining court stamps in the Yukon. We spent about $200 for advertising ferry leases and we have $1,200 of revenue, so that we are on the safe side.
Arts, agriculture and statistics-exhibitions, $200,000. ,


Richard Blain: What is the increase of $50,000 for ?


Hon. SYDNEY FISHER (Minister of Agriculture).: This item covers all the work of the department for exhibition purposes. The vote of $150,000 for the current year was devoted to the closing up of some slight accounts left over and to paying up to the 1st of July next of the expenses in connection with the St. I,ouis exhibition. The item of $200,000 that is asked for the ensuing year, is estimated on the basis of finishing iip everything connected with the St. Louis exhibition, which closes on the 1st December next, and then it is expected that there will be about $75,000 left out of this $200,000 to be devoted to future exhibition work. In explanation of that future exhibition work. I may say briefly that the government a little while ago accepted an invitation to take part in a universal exhibition at Liege in Belgium, which commences next spring, and it is also expected that we will take part in one or perhaps two small exhibitions in England for which we have been discussing the means. These exhibitions are of the nature of annual exhibitions, one in London and one in Liverpool. They are special exhibitions devoted to the provision trade. For some time back representations have been made to me that participation in these exhibitions would be of very great advantage to our trade in provisions-butter, cheese, bacon, eggs, flour, wheat and so on. There is to be an exhibition in autumn of this year in London and one in Liverpool, January next. This latter exhibition is rather a new one. but it is one of an important character and one which reaches very largely the trade in that portion of the country which is so densely populated, in South Lancashire. We have decided to take part in a small degree in these exhibitions. and for this reason, I am asking not only the necessary sum to complete the St. Louis exhibition, but also to make pro-vison for our participation in these exhibitions. The two English exhibitions will be commenced and completed within the next fiscal year. The Liege exhibition will continue after the beginning of the following fiscal year, but I think the amount I am asking for will be sufficient to take in that exhibition up to the 1st of July next.
Mr. TAYLOR, Before we open up the question of exhibitions fully, I desire to say that I asked the hon. the Minister of Agriculture the other night a question, and he told me he would make inquires. I pointed out to him that at page D-19 of the Auditor General's Report, there was a record in connection with the Wolverhampton and Cork exhibitions of an expenditure, as follows
Walker, Hiram & 'Sons, 2 cases Canadian whisky, $20.93.
I asked the hon. gentleman whether he purchased this for his own use or for some "of his friends, and he told me that he would have to make inquiries and get the information.


Mr FISHER.: The hon. gentleman knows perfectly well that I 'did not purchase it for my own use; the insinuation is unworthy ' of an honourable member. I was not in England ; I had no connection with that exhibition beyond the responsibility as head of the department for the expenditure. I have been informed that this expenditure was made by the commissioner in England on an occasion when there was a large gathering of the journalists of the country, who, before the opening visited the exhibition to inspect it. Apparently this purchase was made for the entertainment of these gentlemen.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Was it one of the exhibits ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: On some occasions we have had to purchase exhibits, but so far as I understand this was not for the purpose of exhibition.


George Taylor: The minister must recognize that he is responsible for the expenditure.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I said so.


George Taylor: I was not aware whether the minister visited this exhibition or not-


Sydney Arthur Fisher: No, but the hon. gentleman was perfectly aware that I did not buy whisky for my own personal use.


George Taylor: Whether the hon. gentleman bought it or allowed his officers to buy it, it is all the same. The hon. gentleman came into the government as a representative of the temperance people, and if he allows his officers to purchase a case of Walker & Sons; whisky for the purpose of treating the press or any other representative men, he sinks very low or ought to, in the estimation of the temperance people of Canada. If his officers purchased it without his authority he ought to charge that whisky up to them. Now, in connection *with the Osaka, Japan exhibition, I find in the Auditor General's Report, that there is charged to the Hon. Sydney Fisher : travelling expenses, $1,514.57 ; transport expenses. Canadian Pacific Railway to Japan and re-1 turn, $475.92, total $1,990.49. Then on page

D-26 : Geo. May and Company were paid $40 for a solid leather trunk for the Hon. Sydney Fisher, and then there is a charge of $5.65 for sundries. I understand that the ministers, the same as the members, get solid leather trunks at the opening of each parliament, and this was in the middle of the parliament. I would like the minister to explain this, as well as the $5.65 for sundries. Was it for tips or for other sundries unmentionable or what ? We ought to have a full explanation. In my opinion the government should shut down on these foreign exhibitions. I find that a great deal of this money voted for exhibition purposes is spent in trips for friends. At page D-22 of the Auditor General's Report, we find the following entries : Wm. Hutchison, salary, travelling expenses,*tips, &c., $4,647.72; S. Anderson, salary, travelling expenses, tips, &c., $2,057.80 ; W. A. Burns, salary, travelling expenses, tips, &c., $2,932.07 ; T. K. Doherty, $1,340.54 ; Robt. Hamilton, $2,367.06 ;	W. H. Hay, $2,126.20 ; M.
Hori, $63 ; W. Jamieson, $2,097.75 ; G. Ivamada, $225 ; H. O. Knowlton, $1,768.97. It amounts to a sum of $22,320 on that page, and it is continued on the others. This money appears to be gobbled up by a lot of officers and friends of the ministers who are sent out oni trips to these exhibitions, and I do not know that the country receives any benefit from it. The same state of affairs is going on in St. Louis to-day. There is a wilful waste of money. The minister asked for $150,000 last year and he asks for $50,000 extra this year, making $200,000 in all, and any person who reads the Auditor General's Report and sees how the money is frittered away, must come to the conclusion that Canada receives no benefit from it. If the minister will explain the trunk and tire $5.65, andj this $2,000 expenses for himself in connection with the Japan exhibition, the country will be pleased to know how it was spent.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Well, Mr. Chairman, I am just informed that this trunk was secured by my secretary for the purpose of carrying papers, documents and literature which was carried over to Japan with me. I have to assume the full responsibility for it, although I may say that this is the first time I knew anything about it. As to the item of $5.65 for sundries, I do not know just now what they are. Apparently the amount was paid to Geo. May & Co., probably for some repairs or something of that kind, or possibly for a despatch box, but I will find out what it was exactly and let the hon. gentleman know. As to the general question of the expenditure for exhibitions, I venture to say that I am well within the judgment) of the people of Canada when I state that the expenditure made in this connection has been amply repaid to us- in the additional commerce and trade which Mr. TAYLOR.
these exhibitions have brought about, and the credit which has been reflected upon Canada. Many details of this expenditure were entrusted entirely to the officers in charge ; of course as minister I am responsible. I have no hesitation in taking responsibility, because I have chosen men who I believe are competent for this work, and they took charge of it as other officers in my department take charge of the other branches. 1 do not undertake myself to instruct these experienced officers as to the details of their work ; I choose competent men, I give the work into the hands of these competent men, and I assume the responsibility. I am satisfied that their work shall be judged by the results. As to the Osaka exhibition. I explained on my return what the results were. I have heard compliments over and over again as to the good results of that work. The increase of trade between Canada and Japan and the Orient, as the result of that exhibition, is the best testimony of its success. The total expenditure for the Osaka exhibition was $53,000. I venture to say that the prestige which Canada and her products obtained in the Orient, is ample compensation for that expenditure. In addition to that pecuniary return, wre have had opened to us possibilities of future trade which were perhaps unknown before, and W'hich to-day are assured to us if the people of Canada wish to take advantage of them. I cannot at the moment reply any further to the strictures of the hon. gentleman, but I take it for granted that in the course of the discussion other information will be required of me. But I take it for granted that there will be other items on which I will be only too glad to give all the information possible. If I have not now full information. I shall procure it and lay it before the House, because there is nothing in the whole matter which will not redound to the credit of the officers in charge of the exhibitions and of the country.
Mr. TAYLOR, The hon. gentleman says that the expenses in connection with the Osaka, Japan, exhibition amount to $53,000. but according to the Auditor General's Report for 1902-3 there was an expenditure of $59,987.12. Then there is the expenditure for this year, which we have not yet got, because the exhibition is not yet closed. How-does he account for the difference ?


Mr. T. I. THOMSON.: I wmuld ask the hon. minister what increase there has been in the trade between Japan and Canada since his visit to that country, and on what lines ? I would also call his attention to a statement which I understood him to make with regard to these two cases of w-hisky.
1 understood him to say that they had been purchased in England for the representatives of the press, but I find that the purchase w7as made in Canada, and the liquor was taken with him to England.


Samuel Hughes: Are you certain it all readied tliere ?


Thomas Inkerman Thomson: It was bought from Hiram Walker & Sons and brought to England.


Samuel Hughes: If It reached England, It must have paid the duty or been smuggled in. Surely the hon. minister would not have been guilty of smuggling.


Mr.  T. I.@: THOMiSON. There is another item, namely, G1 dozen photographs, $30. Are these pictures of the staff given the press ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: This whisky was not bought in Canada but in England. I find that the Walkers have an agency in England, and the whisky was got there. My hon. friend did not quite understand what I said. I told him that we had an entertainment at Wolverhampton before the actual opening of the exhibition, to which the press of Great Britain were invited. I understand that this whisky was bought for that entertainment, and it was bought in England.


Thomas Inkerman Thomson: In the Auditor General's Report it is entered as Walker & Sons, 2 cases of club whisky. I would infer that it was bought from that firm, whose distillery is in Ontario. The item for photographs is on page D-23, and it says for newspapers. I would imagine that these were the pictures of the staff.


Mr. PORE.: Were they taken before they had this spree or after ?


William Humphrey Bennett: What was the nature of these papers which were brought over in this $40 trunk ? Are we to understand that the minister's secretary ordered a $40 trunk in which to place some papers, and that the *minister knew nothing about it ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: What I say is that apparently this trunk was ordered by my secretary to take over a large number of papers and documents which I had to take to Japan. As these are heavy articles, he ordered a solid leather trunk at a cost of $40. This is the first time that I have seen the charge, and it seems to me high. I do not think that $40 should be paid for a trunk for any person. The papers consisted of a number of official documents on trade and also literature connected with trade and the country generally.


William Humphrey Bennett: It seems to me extraordinary that the minister should have a clerk who has so little idea of business procedure that he pays $40 for a trunk and puts some advertising matter into it. What has become of this precious trunk ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I really cannot say. I suppose it is in the department.


William Humphrey Bennett: It is amusing to look over these estimates. In one of them I find
that a departmental clerk purchased for himself a fur overcoat. That, however, is not in the hon. gentleman's department. In another case a member of parliament had a fancy writing desk taken to a hotel here, and the country is paying for writing desks for members of parliament, hawked around to their hotels and no doubt taken home with them. It is high time that this thing should be stopped. It is not the amount, but the depth of meanness to which we object ; but evidently some people will descend to anything in order to make a little graft.


Thomas Inkerman Thomson: There is another strange item in connection with the exhibition at Osaka. 24 pairs of rubbers for women, costing $26, were purchased. This will be seen on page D-24, and further down there are 16 pairs of rubbers for men.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Those were all for exhibition purposes. We bought a rubber exhibit and sent it over there. Amongst other articles were men's and women's rubbers.


Thomas Inkerman Thomson: What disposition was made of these rubbers ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: They were sold in Japan, and come under the item ' Refund.'
Mr, POPE. Is it customary to buy the exhibits we take to these places ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: We bought all the exhibits that we sent to Osaka.


Uriah Wilson: How much money has been spent on the St. Louis exhibition so far, and what will it cost ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: The total cost up to the 1st of May, 1904, was $107,000.	y


Uriah Wilson: What do you expect the total cost of the exhibition to be ?
Mr. FISHER, I am informed that $325,000 is the total sum.


Uriah Wilson: It is not one-half paid yet ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Oh, no.


George Taylor: The minister has not explained how the expenditure has been only $53,000 while the items in the Auditor General's Report total $59,000.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: There are items in the Auditor General's Report, which cover the period up to the first of July last year, for nearly $50,000. There is in this years' expenditure a little over $3,000 which makes a total of nearly $63,000. But there is a refund in consequence of the sale of exihibits of nearly $10,000, bringing the net cost down to $53,000 in round figures.


Andrew B. Ingram: At these foreign exhibitions does the government buy all the foreign exhibits?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I do not say that because we did that in the Osaka exhibition we

shall buy them for all the exhibitions. There were a few exhibits sent as presents from the people. For instance the Christie Biscuit Company in Toronto, supplied an exhibit of their biscuits, but most of the exhibits we bought and sent over there. We found that the manufacturers and people in Canada were not prepared to send forward exhibits. They looked upon it as a risk and did not know whether they would be able to dispose of them. They did not know what the terms were, or what the trade was, but there were certain lines of goods in which from our inquiries we believed we could open a trade. We were justified in sending an exhibit of these goods by the fact that we found a sale for them and that since then there has been a demand for direct sale to Japan.


Andrew B. Ingram: The hon. gentleman's remarks will apply to this item which we are discussing now. There is no intention of supplying exhibits for the St. Louis exhibition is there?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: At St. Louis we are first of all making what we may call a government or national exhibit in four chief lines, agricultural products, horticultural products, mining and mineral products, forest products, and we will also have an exhibit of fish and game. These are articles of which private exhibitors could not possibly make exhibits that would be national in their character and creditable to the country. The officers of my exhibition branch have therefore prepared collected and selected articles to make up these four great exhibits. These have been purchased where they could not be obtained otherwise. Then at St. Louis, there are certain private exhibits sent by firms who are anxious to get the eclat of the exhibit for themselves.


Andrew B. Ingram: That would apply only to high class exhibits. Are these manufacturing firms?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Most of them are manufacturing firms.	,


Andrew B. Ingram: What class of manufacture ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: There are very few manufacturing exhibits. The Kingston Locomotive Works have sent down a locomotive, the Grand Trunk and Canadian Pacific have made railway exhibits there. Some agricultural implement manufacturers have 'sent down agricultural implements and perhaps a few others which I cannot at the moment recall. In these cases the exhibits belong to the exhibitors ; we did not purchase them, but we aided the exhibitors in making arrangements for the exhibits. My commissioner has acted as the intermediary for them in dealing with the authorities at St. Louis, but otherwise they have no responsibility and no expense.


Andrew B. Ingram: There is not an exhibit of Canadian cheese sent there ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: 


Sydney Arthur Fisher: No.


Andrew B. Ingram: For the reason that the duty is too high ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: There are two reasons. I asked the Dairy Association if they wished to exhibit, and at first they thought they would like to but later, on consideration and after consulting with my dairy department, they considered that it was not advisable and would be of no use. An exhibit of cheese from this country to be creditable, would cost about $10,000 for refrigerating &c., and after consultation, it was decided not to undertake such an exhibit.


Andrew B. Ingram: Not for the reason that the duty is too high?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Oh, no.


Andrew B. Ingram: Excuse me. I attended a cheesemen's meeting in Western Ontario. That question was fully discussed there and it was said that the consumption of Canadian cheese in the United States was not sufficient to induce Canadians to exhibit cheese at that fair, but the chief reason was that the very high rate of duty which Americans - levy on cheese sent to that country was a very great barrier to the sending of our cheese to that country.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Possibly.


Andrew B. Ingram: That is a correct statement.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Yes.


Andrew B. Ingram: We find that they send into this country much more cheese than we send into their country and the high rate of duty they impose on our cheese keeps it out of the United States. Why then, should we not put our duty up as high as theirs and have that a barrier to their cheese coming into this country. Probably if we did that they might reduce the duty on Canadian cheese going into their country and Canadians would have a near market for cheese instead of having to send it the long distance to the British market. I am not finding fault with the government for buying these articles. Possibly that is the best thing to do, but the hon. gentleman has not told us in what way he disposed of the articles. Was it at a profit or at a loss ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: They were disposed of as best the exhibition commissioners could dispose of them in Japan.


Andrew B. Ingram: At a loss ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I could not say whether it was at a loss or not without consulting the books. I am sure that some were sold at a slight loss and some at their full value, plus all the expenses connected with sending them there. I have not the details under my, hand showing which of the articles were sold at a loss and on which

expenses were fully recovered. As a rule they were not sold at a loss.


Uriah Wilson: How much money has the hon. minister spent in buying exhibits for the St. Louis exhibition ?
'Mr. FISHER. 1 cannot give the amount spent in buying exhibits. We have spent money in collecting the large exhibits to which I have referred, but I cannot tell how much was spent in purchase and how much in expenses of collection.


Uriah Wilson: What is the total amount?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: 1 have a memorandum showing the expenses on the different branches as follows :
Agricultural	section	$16,350Horticultural	section	
7,700Forestry	
11,900Mineral	
23,950


Thomas Inkerman Thomson: The minister spoke of increased trade between Canada and Japan resulting from this exhibition at which he was personally present. Can he tell us what increase took place in the trade since then ? For my own part I do not believe we get any return for the expenditure incurred through these exhibitions. They appear to me to be carried on very extravagantly, and I regret that the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Fisher) to whom we thought we could look for economical management of his department is as extravagant as any other minister. Would the hon. gentleman tell us in what way, if any, we get a return for these exhibitions through increase of trade.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I will take the most important item first. Until this- Japanese exhibition took place Canadian flour was absolutely unknown in the Japanese and Chinese markets. Since that time a very large amount has been sent over. I cannot state the increase from memory but I have under my own observation several orders of car loads each. I know that a prominent Japanese merchant came to Canada soon after the exhibition closed and that he made arrangements with the Ogilvie Company and the Lake of the Woods Company to handle their flour, and that steady shipments have been going on. Take another item. Ever since the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Sir Richard Cartwright) sent an agent to Japan, my own department on behalf of creameries in the Northwest Territories has been shipping a small quantity of butter to Japan. That trade had not increased during the four years we had been carrying it on. It amounted to about half a ton a month. But since the exhibition we have sent over a ton by every ship that has gone out of Vancouver. In other words, it has increased nearly four times. Again within the last week, I received a request from Shanghai from a gentleman who is the di-131
rector under Sir Robert Hart, of the Customs of China, saying that he had been at the Osaka exhibition-I met him personally when there, and had a good deal to say to him-that in connection with the office he occupied he used a large amount of paper, including quantities for printing purposes, and having seen the paper and pulp exhibit at Osaka he had directed his officers to communicate with me to see if he could not secure his supply in Canada, instead of in Germany or other places in Europe, for he had seen no better paper than that in our exhibit. Various other inquiries have been received in regard to different kinds of goods especially furniture and school desks and other minor lines.


Thomas Inkerman Thomson: I have listened with attention to what the \Minister has said, but I cannot see that he has made good his case. He tells us of our paper having attracted the attention of some business man in Shanghai. But there is no evidence that he has purchased any in Canada. Then, he told us that Canadian flour did not reach the Japanese market before his own visit to Japan.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I said that Canadian flour was not known in the Japanese market. I believe that some had been sent by Seattle and Tacoma, but it was known as American flour and not as Canadian. A number of years ago one milling company, I think the Ogilvies' sent a small consignment which they said was a financial failure and nothing further was done.


Thomas Inkerman Thomson: I think it would be a good thing for the minister to have a statement prepared of the trade with Japan the year before his visit and since. Because I am satisfied, and I am sure the people are satisfied, that we get no returns from these exhibitions. If he can show a satisfactory increase of trade as a result of these exhibitions it will be most gratifying ; but, from the remarks of the hon. gentleman himself there is nothing to warrant this large expenditure of money.


Uriah Wilson: I make the total of the figures the minister gave us $55,900. Is that right ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I have not the total of the four sections I gave. There are additional items in the statement I have before me.


Uriah Wilson: What other items are there ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: There is an expenditure of $33,000 for the Canadian pavilion and everything connected with it, and $52,000 for sundry expenditures, management, collection, &c. The total balance is $145,000. That is the estimate of what these exhibits will cost and not merely what has been spent.
revised edition


Mr. GANONG.: According to the minister's statement, money has been spent for the purchase of exhibits for Osaka and other exhibitions. But I understand that the two cases of club whisky which have been referred to were not purchased as exhibits.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: 1 explained that a few minutes ago.


Gilbert White Ganong: 1 might justify the minister for purchasing them for exhibition purposes. If they had been furnished for exhibition purposes and not simply purchased in order that the commission might make an exhibition of themselves, that might be justifiable. But I do not believe the people of this country will justify the hon. gentleman in standing up in this House and telling them that he is actually taking their money in order to give some persons a chance to have a drunken spree over on the other side. Does the minister justify that expenditure ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: No.


Gilbert White Ganong: Well, he has confessed one of his many sins to-night. All we ask of him to-day is to state to this House that so far as the future is concerned he will instruct his officers that no such expenditure shall be made. Then we will believe some of the doctrines he has preached in this country in favour of prohibition.


William Humphrey Bennett: The minister made a sweeping statement as to the export of flour to Japan. According to the return ending the 30th of June, 1903, we shipped to Japan 611 barrels of flour, valued at $2,167. Does the minister give us that as a result of the exhibition ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: What I said a few minutes ago I can only repeat, that since the exhibition closed I am aware that orders have been placed here and the flour has been sent forward, quite a number of carloads. I am not sufficiently familiar with the flour business to know how many barrels are carried in a car.


Rufus Henry Pope: But you made a statement.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I made a statement that so many carloads were orered and went forward, and I repeat that statement.


William Humphrey Bennett: The trade and navigation returns show that three or four years ago we were shipping to Japan five times as much flour as we shipped last year. Why, for the year ending the 30th of June, 1901, we shipped 3,000 barrels, as against GOO last year. The minister must think the House and the public are very credulous when he tells us that in consequence of holding this exhibition the sale of flour in Japan has been stimulated. Does not the minister know that the Canadian Pacific Railway Company have had some magnificent ships Mr. FISHER.
trading to that country for years, and does he imagine that the Canadian Pacific Railway Company were carrying these over empty from year to year, and that the enterprising men living in British Columbia were standing idly by and allowing this opportunity to slip of shipping flour to Japan ? It is tommyrot for the hon. gentleman to talk about this exhibition, and tell us that the manufacture of some cheap pies and of pastry over there has stimulated the sale of flour. Everybody remembers the pictures the hon. gentlenuvn had distributed all over tue country showing the natives of Japan crowding up to a free lunch counter that the Dominion of Canada was providing at the great Japanese exhibition. The returns show, no doubt for a number of years back, ever since the installation of the line of boats by the Canadian Pacific Railway Company, that there have been large shipments of flour. I do not know why our trade has lapsed from 3,000 barrels to 600 barrels, but it is plain that before this exhibition was ever heard of, or the minister either, in Japan, we were shipping large quantities of flour to Japan. The minister must give some better proof than he has done of the results of this exhibition.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I cannot explain the statement the hon. gentleman has made. At the same time, what I have stated is absolutely accurate, that Canadian flour was not known in the Japanese market at all, and we could not find anybody there who had ever seen it or known of it ; and immediately after the exhibition a large number of orders were placed here, and the flour has been going forward.


William Humphrey Bennett: Would the minister say that Canadian flour was unknown there, in face of the government returns ?	.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I will inquire into that.


Thomas Inkerman Thomson: Could the minister tell me what became of the exhibits that were sent to Japan ? I can find the disposition of the exhibits that were taken to Wolverhampton, but I cannot find anything about the disposition of these exhibits that were taken to Japan.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I have just had placed in my hands a list showing that there were $400 worth of goods sold at the exhibition in Japan. I have not got the details.


Thomas Inkerman Thomson: Where is the item in the Auditor General's Report ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: That will appear in this year's report. The sale was not made until the end of the exhibition.


Thomas Inkerman Thomson: I would ask the minister if Canada has an exhibition of live stock at St. Louis, and if not, why not ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: In the first place, the exhibition of live stock at St. Louis does not

begin until next August. In that connection I may make some explanation. There has been a good deal of discussion amongst the breeders in Canada as to the advisability of exhibiting live stock at St. Louis. A deputation came to me last summer and asked that such an exhibit should be made, and asked me to set aside a very large sum, about $120,000, for the purpose of procuring such an exhibit. I felt full sympathy with the breeders of Canada in this regard, because I knew that while some impediments had lately arisen to the sale of our live stock in the United States, still there had been, and is, a large trade, and probably there will be in the future a large trade in thoroughbred live stock with the United States. I therefore discussed the question how we could best secure a creditable exhibit of live stock at St. Louis. While that question was under discussion, certain negotiations took place between my own department and the management of the live stock exhibition at St. Louis. We asked that certain arrangements be made to facilitate the entry of our live stock at that exhibition, that is to say, as to what registration and pedigree of throughbred animals should be recognized as to the various details and conditions of the exhibition. In the course of these negotiations and discussions there was a great deal of correspondence in the agricultural press on both sides of the line, and a good many of our breeders in Canada thought that they would not care to exhibit at all. Not long after the deputation came to see me in Ottawa, I received a letter from one of the leading men in the live stock business in Canada saying that he doubted very much if the very men who asked me to make that arrangement would care to exhibit at all. This came to me as a surprise, and I then took steps to communicate with a number of the live stock breeders in this country. A little while after that the various breeders' associations of Canada, held their meetings in the course of the autumn and early winter, and I think I am speaking correctly when i say that in every one of those meetings of the breeders' associations, discussions arose and resolutions were passed declaring that the associations considered it inadvisable to exhibit live stock at the St. Louis exhibition.


Mr. GILMOUR.: Did they give any reasons ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Various reasons were given. I do not remember that they were embodied in any of the resolutions sent to me, but I think in some of them they were. The reasons were that they were not satisfied with the conditions which were published, they were not satisfied with regard to the terms upon which Canadian exhibitors could exhibit. I also understood, though I do not know that it was so stated in any of the resolutions, that they were hopeless of a con-131J
tinued market in the United States for their cattle, and especially did they find difficulty in regard to the sale of the animals that were sent to the St. Louis exhibition.


Andrew B. Ingram: That was the chief complaint ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: One of the chief complaints was that customs regulations of the United States were such that no Canadian animals sent to the St. Louis exhibition could be sold there and left in the country. The breeders did not want to take their animals to St. Louis and go to the expense and trouble of exhibiting them and having to bring them hack. These various resolutions were passed and forwarded to me. I had a great many communications and a great oeal of discussion sometimes with individuals and sometimes through my officers who attended these various meetings of breeders' associations and I found the differences of opinion in regard to the advisability of exhibiting at St. Louis were very great, but what I might call the official or formal (statement of the chief breeders cl this country declared against exhibiting at St. Louis. Then we came to about the middle of winter or early this spring, when I began to receive individual letters from various men saying, that, notwithstanding that the breeders as a body had decided not to show, they individually would like to show and asking what I would do to aid them. I discussed this again with various people with whom I came in contact, and in some letters and I also asked that my live stock commissioner, Mr. Hodgson, should communicate with and meet these people. I have had a very considerable amount of difficulty in determining as to what it was best to do, however, in view of the representations made to me by individuals, I have caused a letter to be prepared to be sent to the different breeders' associations, to individuals who have been communicating with me and to the press, to the effect that while there are differences of opinion and while resolutions have been formally passed by the different breeders' associations it seemed to me to be impossible to secure what I might call a really national, creditable exhibit of live stock at St. Louis ; nevertheless as there seemed to be a considerable number of individuals who wish to exhibit, I would facilitate their exhibition in every way possible, and I would grant to them this pecuniary assistance that I would give to every exhibitor who secures a prize a sum equal to the amount of the prizes that he secures at St. Louis. That is to say that I would double the prizes by granting to every individual securing prizes at St. Louis the 'full amount of the prize he takes. That would be a very considerable help to those who exhibit their stock because I feel confident that anybody who, on his own responsibility, takes animals to St. Louis would take

such good animals and would be so successful that he would get a fair share of the prizes, a larger share of the prizes than would be expected from the number of animals. Therefore, I would supplement the prizes secured by these Canadian exhibitors with an equal amount so as to assist them in paying their expenses. I do not know if the announcement has yet been sent out. but it will be within a day or two if it has not already gone to the press and to the associations.


Andrew B. Ingram: The hon. minister has not referred to the persons with whom he corresponded on this question. May I ask if any of the American consuls had any correspondence with him and if the department entered into any discussion with the authorities at Washington in respect to this question of the exhibition of cattle?
l


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I do not remember that we corresponded with the people at Washington. I felt that the exhibition authorities at St. Louis, who seemed to be extremely anxious that we should exhibit there would be able to exert a greater influence with the Department of Agriculture and the Department of Customs at Washington than we could. I do not remember that we communicated with Washington at all. I think we negotiated only with the authorities of the St. Louis exhibition, pointing out to them the difficulties that our exhibitors felt and asking them to tif and exert their influence with the Washington authorities to remove these difficulties.


Andrew B. Ingram: The American consul in my district interested himself very much in trying to remove the friction that existed between the prospective exhibitors of cattle in this country and the St. Louis authorities, and I understand from his correspondence that he had in some way satisfactorily arrange the matter. I do not know what has taken place since, but it does seem to me that the Department of Agriculture should have communicated with the government at Washington and asked them to bring whatever pressure they could to bear upon the proper authorities at Washington, pointing out that this was a very important question and that semething ought to be done in rega'rd to it in the interest of live stock exhibitors generally.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: My reason for not doing that was that I felt that the St. Louis exhibition authorities who were being endorsed and supported and backed up by the Washington authorities would be more likely to be able to exert an influence upon the Washington departments than we would be. That may have been an error of judgment on my part but that is the view I took, and that is the reason that I left it in their hands. Independently altogether of the St. Louis exhibition I have had communicat-Mr. FISHER.
ions with Washington as to the difficulties of the customs regulations there, and' I regret to say that we have not had any very great consideration shown to our representations. On the contrary, the Washington customs authorities, I think stimulated by the Department of Agriculture at Washington, have been making their customs regulations more and more stringent all the time instead of relaxing them in any way.


Andrew B. Ingram: Can the hon. minister give us any idea as to how American exhibitors are treated in Canada, at Toronto, for instance. Last year we held a Dominion exhibition at Toronto and there was a large number of Americans present. Was there any such one-sided arrangement in dealing with the American exhibitors at Toronto as that under which the Canadians are dealt with at St. Louis ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: No, we gave the American exhibitors every facility possible in bringing their animals in here. The Toronto exhibition authorities arranged with the Customs Department to have these animals brought in and to be held in bond. If they were sold here instead of being taken back to the United States every facility was given for such sale. But, our regulations in regard to customs governing the importation of thoroughbred stock and other stock from the United States have never been characterized by the impediments that the regulations of the United States offer to the admission of Canadian stock. I may say in regard to that for the information of the committee, that at a meeting of the live stock breeders of Canada held at the opening of this session, these gentlemen urged very strongly that we should retaliate against the United States, that we should adopt the same regulations in regard to the free entry of thoroughbred animals from the United States that they have adopted towards us. At the present moment my department is busy looking into the question of registration, and the question of what registers and what pedigrees ou.r customs authorities ought to recognize. Heretofore, our customs authorities have been very liberal indeed in recognizing almost any pedigree that was presented to them for an animal claimed to be thoroughbred so as to get free entry under bur customs law. We have not put any impediments in the way. I think we have been too easy in that respect and I know as a matter of fact that certain animals have come into the country free of customs duties which were accompanied by pedigrees which were absolutely worth- ' less for breeding purposes in this country, which would not have been recognized by any breeders' association at all and yet the purchasers thought they were getting animals that were thoroughbred and registered in such a way that

the progeny would afterwards be admitted to register here when, as a matter of fact, they would not be. This is a condition of affairs that ought to be remedied, and one which to-day my live stock commissioner is engaged in studying so as to find out what pedigrees our customs authorities ought to recognize and what they ought to reject. This is a seriously complicated question!, one that presents considerable, difficulties, and one which must be handled with the greatest care so as not to injure the interests of those who have been breeding thoroughbred live stock in this country. It is a question which deserves great consideration, and ought to be dealt with -as soon as possible.


Andrew B. Ingram: Instead of communicating with the authorities of the exhibition, my opinion is that diplomatic courtesy would have required the Minister of Agriculture to communicate in the first place with the authorities in! Washington. It would appear to me that in these matters, Canadians offer fair and reasonable terms to the American people ; we were willing to reciprocate and are met with retaliation. The minister would be justified in retaliating against such treatment as that. Let us stand on our own dignity. We are just as good as our friends across the border ; we expect fair treatment in return for fair treatment, but if we do not get fair treatment, let us stand on our rights and give them the same treatment as they give us.


James Gilmour: This change was made within the past few years?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Yes.


James Gilmour: As the United States law now is, an American citizen can come over here and buy thoroughbred Stock and take it back free of duty, but a Canadian is not allowed to send thoroughbred stock into the United States free of duty.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: That is it.


James Gilmour: Was any remonstrance made by this government when the change was made ? What was the object of the United States government in making such a law ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I did not ask the reason why they made the law, I may say frankly that the communications I have had of late with the Department of Agriculture at Washington with regard to this matter, have been so unsatisfactory that I have felt it was hardly consonant with the dignity of Canada to make a protest. They told us practically that they were going to regulate their own affairs to suit themselves and they did not care what we thought about it. Some years ago, Mr. Wilson, the United States Secretary of Agriculture, told me in his own office in Washington in so many words :	I believe
that we in the United States have come to the point where we do not want to import any animals from anywhere, and I am not going to do anything to facilitate importations from Canada or from Europe. In view of such a statement I felt that it was not in keeping with the dignity of this country to plead for a relaxation of their arrangements. I feel very much as my hon. friend from East Elgin (Mr. Ingram) has expressed himself. It is evident that of late years animals have been imported free of duty into Canada, which were not pure bred in the proper sense of the word. Our customs authorities have been in the habit of recognizing anything in the shape of a certificate of registration and to my knowledge many of these certificates are certificates of registration in herd books which are not of any value as to the breed. Many animals have been brought in here as. thoroughbred, Which for all practical purposes were grade animals. Apart from any question of retaliation, it is high time that we should see to the registration which entitles an animal to come in free of duty. When first this matter was discussed with the St. Louis exhibition authorities, they expressed their desire to facilitate our exhibits in every possible way as regards customs arrangements.


James Gilmour: What was their proposition ?	_


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Their proposition was that the animals should be subject to the ordinary law. My hon. friend (Mr. Gil-mour) is right in saying that within a year [DOT] and a. half, these restrictions have been greatly increasjed; in the United States. Before that, pedigree animals were allowed in free of duty, but the customs authorities made a ruling that an animal could only he sent in free of duty when it was going to be used for breeding purposes by the person importing it. A man in British Columbia sent some horses over the frontier for sale, and he was forced to pay the duty. Shortly afterwards, an amendment was made to the United States customs law which said that only American citizens could import animals for breeding purposes or for sale free of duty, and at the present time no Canadian can take an animal into the United States free of duty and dispose of it there.


James Gilmour: There is the chief reason for the Canadian breeders not exhibiting any kind of stock at St. Louis.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: That is one of the chief reasons, but there are a number of others as well. The whole question is pretty complicated, and a great many minor difficulties accumulated to bring them to the conclusion to which they seem to have come.


James Gilmour: Then there will be no live stock there ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Yes, there will. A good many individual breeders want to take animals there-horsemen, sheepmen, swine-men, but hardly any cattlemen.


Andrew B. Ingram: I am surprised to hear the hon. minister say that the Minister of Agriculture at Washington spoke so very discouragingly and did not wish to reciprocate in any favours at all with our department. Surely the United States minister at Washington could not have looked np the trade and navigation returns of Canada. If he had, he would have found us in this unfortunate position, that while we exported to the United States 10,432 cattle valued at $292,288, we imported from the United States 37,527 cattle valued at $472,689. Or there was a balance of trade in favour of the Washington Agricultural Department of $180,401. Instead of this government keeping its duty at 20 per cent and allowing American cattle to come in to the extent of $180,401 in excess of the amount we send to the other side of the line. I would ask the hon. minister to use his influence with his colleague the Minister of Finance and try and induce him to raise our duty to 27J per cent. We would then have Canadian and American farmers on an equal footing. Then we would be.advancing a step in the way of protecting our own interests. I could go through the whole list of agricultural products and make the same kind of argument. They do not show much discretion on the other side when they talk about retaliation and as not being willing to reciprocate favours, and I would implore the hon. gentleman to use his influence with the Minister of Finance in order that the latter may give Canadians a fair chance.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: The amount of cattle brought from the United States includes settlers' cattle, of which there is a very large number.


Andrew B. Ingram: That makes no difference.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: A large number also are brought from the United States by our ranchmen in western Canada for the purpose of fattening and re-exporting.


James Clancy: To the United States ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: No, to England. Young animals, what are called store cattle, are brought in and fattened or used for breeding purposes and either they or their products are exported to England in fit condition. Some of our ranchmen have gone as far as Mexico and have brought Mexican cattle across through the United States. I have had to put some restrictions on the importation of these for sanitary and quarantine purposes, but have had an earnest protest against any such restriction, Mr. FISHER.
as the ranchmen inform me it is absolutely necessary for their business to import these cattle. These cattle are practically the raw material of our ranchmen.


Andrew B. Ingram: I am afraid the hon. gentleman is becoming a little bit of a protectionist.
Mi'. FISHER.' No, I have always been in favour of free raw material.	-


Andrew B. Ingram: The ranchman is a manufacturer of beef the same as any manufacturer is, the manufacturer of agricultural implements.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Quite so.


Andrew B. Ingram: Does the hon. gentleman pretend to say that these men, who are few in number, are to be encouraged to the detriment of the great class of agriculturists throughout Canada ? Are you going to discourage our cattle raisers by allowing that kind of thing to continue much longer ? If the hon. gentleman will give us the total amount of cattle raised in Canada in 1901, then we will be in a better position to form a conclusion. If the hon. gentleman will raise the duty to 27$ per cent, then let these cattle come in, and we will be able to send cattle into the United States on the same footing.


James Gilmour: With regard to dealing with the Americans, I would not retaliate for the mere sake of retaliation, but only on business principles ; and on business principles I do not believe in the importation of young cattle from Mexico and the United States. That import is a source of danger because it may bring in disease. The hon. minister has said that these young cattle are our raw material, but we are raising the raw material in this country to a very large extent, and we ought to protect our own herds that are raising the raw material and encourage them to raise more. And the more we encourage the raising of the raw material in this country, the more rapidly will we bring about that condition of things when we will supply the country further south with the young cattle it requires. I do not at all believe in allowing these little cattle to come from away down south bringing with them Texas ticks, or these little horses bringing in what I need not mention, but what the officers of your department report as dangerous. That is my opinion about retaliation. I believe in dealing with our neighbours on business principles, and on business principles I advise you to look after that business which is going on and which has been going on for two or three years. I want the minister to remember that it is only a very few years since the Americans were up in Manitoba paying such prices for young cattle there that the ranchers in the west could

not meet them. That state of things will come about again. It is not worth while for a short period to allow these young cattle to come in as they have been coming in for the past two or three years. It only sets back the period at which we would meet the demand ourselves, if you allow that raw material to come in in competition with the raw material which you may produce yourself.


Andrew B. Ingram: When our American friends want to meet a case of that kind they lower the duty to suit their own purposes and then when their purposes are served they raise it again to suit themselves. If they find it to their advantage to lower the duty and then to increase it they do so. They have not a stationary tariff as we have and I would treat them exactly as they treat -us. I do not consider that retaliation at all. Is it not a fair business proposition that if it is good for them after all the years of experience they have had, to adopt this course a similar course must be good for us under like conditions ? We have not yet had the same experience which they have had with the tariff and I think a leaf out of their book in that respect would be a step in the right direction. It is a business transaction not a party transaction.
* Mr. FISHER. I do not want to discuss the tariff to-night. I may however, say that while in no way retaliating or considering what the Americans do, I think we ought to try to regulate our affairs entirely to suit ourselves to protect our interests and to make our people as prosperous as possible. The condition of affairs changes from time to time, as my hon. friend from Middlesex (Mir. Gilmour) said; A few years ago the Americans were buying cattle in Canada and taking them across the lihe because at that time we had not as great a demand in Canada for cattle as they had. To-day owing to the enormous influx of people into the west and the general prosperity of the country, there is a demand for cattle which our own people cannot supply. Under these circumstances our people have had to go south in order to get the animals they want.


Andrew B. Ingram: What about the 10,000 we sent there ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: My hon. friend knows that those are sent from one part of the country while the others cross the border in another section. Those 10,000 cattle did not go from the Northwest Territories south. In that region the stream is north. These animals went into the eastern states for different purposes and some of them entered at the extreme west. They went to the States because our breeds have been recognized in the United States as being better and notwithstanding all the obstructions and
restrictions whicty the Americans avowedly wish to place on the importation of Canadian thoroughbred stock into the United ' States, we still send a very considerable number of these cattle across the line. Despite all their efforts to shut us out our cattle are so good and the demand for our best cattle amongst the breeders of the United States is so great that they still have to come to Canada for their stock.


James Clancy: Does the hon. gentleman approve of a large number of young cattle coming in from the American ranches'to be placed on Canadian farms ?


Mr. FOWLER.: If our ranchers find they cannot get supplies sufficient for the interest of their business in Canada I am glad to see that they are enterprising, businesslike and bright enough to get these supplies wherever they can on a profitable basis. If our people in Canada would never go abroad to get anything we would continue to be a small and poor nation.


Richard Blain: Would my hon. friend the Minister of Agriculture regard it as in the interest of Canada that our duty should be placed high enough to cause the ranchers to breed these cattle in the Dominion of Canada and fatten them in this country rather than to import them ? Do I understand him to say that in his opinion it is better as opportunity presents itself to allow the ranchers of western Canada to purchase their lean small cattle in the United States and to finish them in western Can-anad.


Mahlon K. Cowan: We ship our small cattle into the United States .which are unfit for fattening purposes.


Richard Blain: My hon. friend has not a very high opinion of the United States people. United States people have no idea of building up their nation by importing small Canadian cattle into the United States to fatten. That is not the policy of the United States.


Mahlon K. Cowan: They do it ; I do not know their policy but they do it. Cattle unfit for export to England are shipped by hundreds into the United Stats.


Richard Blain: What for.


Mahlon K. Cowan: I do not know what for, all I know is that we get American money for Canadian stackers, cattle that we cannot ship to England.


Richard Blain: Does my hon. friend think that we cannot keep them here ?


Mahlon K. Cowan: Yearlings and calves and two-year olds have gone in by hundreds ever since the quarantine regulations were removed.


Richard Blain: Does my hon. friend think it is a good policy for the Canadian farmer

to breed small cattle and, send them into the United States ?


Mahlon K. Cowan: I do not consider it good policy for a Canadian farmer to sell anything off the farm that cannot walk off, but if he has something which is unfit for him to fatten or to ship to European markets or for which he cannot find a market in Europe, then if he can find a market for it in the United States, I consider it decidedly good policy.


Richard Blain: My hon. friend says he does not think it good policy to export anything we can fatten in this country ?


Mahlon K. Cowan: Anything we can fatten with profit to the man who raises it.


Richard Blain: Why does he then support a government which says it is good policy to import these into Canada and fatten them here ?


Mahlon K. Cowan: Because he may import something that it is profitable for him to fatten, and export something that is unprofitable for him to try to fatten.


Andrew B. Ingram: This is a very serious matter so far as the county I represent is concerned. For the year 1902, which is the latest year for which I can get statistics- and these I take from the public documents of Ontario-we sold or slaughtered 20,782 head of cattle valued at $727,370, or $35 per head ? Now the location of my county is similar to that of the hon. member for South Essex (Mr. Cowan) we live between Detroit and the Niagara rivers. Trainload after trainload of American cattle pass through his city and mine. That is of rather serious consequence to the farmers of our section.


Mahlon K. Cowan: These are cattle in transit from the western to the eastern states.


Andrew B. Ingram: Certainly.


Mahlon K. Cowan: And if they did not pass through the hon. gentleman's (Mr. Ingram's) county and mine they would be switched off at Toledo and go south of Lake Erie to Buffalo, passing entirely through United States territory. The shorter route is through Canada.


Andrew B. Ingram: I agree with the hon. gentleman's statement, but I do not quite see the object of his interruption.


Mahlon K. Cowan: I did not mean to interrupt the hon. gentleman (Mr. Ingram). I may not have caught exactly what he said. But I understood him to speak of trainloads of cattle passing through my county and his, and I thought the facts that I have mentioned important in that connection.


Andrew B. Ingram: I have not arrived at the point where the interruption would come in. But I shall reach that point soon. I was going to point out that the Americans would Mr. BLAIN.
have an unfair advantage over our cattle growers in connection with this trade, if the duty were one sided, for it would be a simple matter for them to drop off certain of these carloads of cattle to compete in our markets with our cattle.


Mahlon K. Cowan: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Ingram) knows better than that.


Andrew B. Ingram: Let us see. Suppose that this government were to reduce duty from twenty per cent to ten per cent while the Americans, instead of leaving their duty at twenty-seven per cent, were to raise it to thirty-five.


Mahlon K. Cowan: Say forty.


Andrew B. Ingram: I want to accommodate my hon. friend, so, let it go at forty. Under these circumstances does he not think the Americans would have a great advantage with these trainloads of cattle passing through our country ?


Mahlon K. Cowan: Not a bit.


Andrew B. Ingram: Of course, I cannot see it' through the same spectacles as my hon. friend (Mr. Cowan). But I know that the people of Elgin regard this as a very serious matter. Let me give the hon. gentleman an instance of what may be seen in the small cities of New York state, and that might reasonably occur in the cities of Ontario. Let my hon. friend, some Saturday, drop down to Ogdensburg and, before entering the city, let him pass through eight or ten miles of country on the American side and talk with the farmers there as he has opportunity and find out how many cattle the farmers in that neighbourhood are raising and compare the number with the number of cattle in the neighbourhood of Windsor where he lives. Then let him go to Ogdensburg and find the condition of the meat trade there. He will find butchers there carrying on business as everywhere else. But he will not find them buying from the farmers in the neighbourhood of Ogdensburg to any great extent. And Why? Because the big meat industries of Chicago send in their frozen meat into Ogdensburg and suppply the butchers directly. The moment a butcher tries to buy stock from the farmers about Ogdensburg he is closed up because he cannot compete with the frozen meat imported from the great operators in Chicago. If hon. gentlemen opposite remove the duty, we shall be reduced to the level of the United States in this respect and the conditions that we find about Ogdensburg will exist about St. Thomas or Windsor. Now, in the matter of corn-


Mahlon K. Cowan: We are talking about meat.


Andrew B. Ingram: I know the hon. gentleman does not want to hear about corn.


Mahlon K. Cowan: On the contrary, I am most anxious.


Andrew B. Ingram: The hon. gentleman is in favour of a duty on corn.


Mahlon K. Cowan: I am in favour of the policy of the present government.


Andrew B. Ingram: Is the hon. gentleman in favour of the removal of the duty ?


Mahlon K. Cowan: The duty was removed from corn so far as our cattle feeders were concerned, but not so far as the distillers were concerned.


Andrew B. Ingram: Did the hon. gentleman approve of the removal of that duty ?


Mahlon K. Cowan: Most decidedly. I voted for it.


Andrew B. Ingram: I am glad to hear the hon. gentleman state that. He is more outspoken than the hon. member for West York (Mr. Campbell).


Mahlon K. Cowan: Mr. Chairman, I have no desire to prolong this discussion, but it seems necessary to say a word or two. My hon. friend from Bast Elgin (Mr. Ingram) closed on the question of corn. The people of my district,-the people of the counties of Essex and Kent and extending into West Lambton and West Elgin are the largest corn producers in the Dominion of Canada. Under the policy of hon. gentlemen opposite when they were in power, if a man wanted to import'corn for the distillers, to be made Into Canadian whisky and in that form to be exported, he got it free of duty or, at least he got a rebate of 90 per cent-


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Ninety-nine.


Mahlon K. Cowan: I was not exactly sure of the figures, and I wanted to give the hon. gentleman (Mr. Ingram) the benefit of any doubt. He shook his head at ninety, will he shake his head at ninety-nine ? I want to put this fairly. If a Canadian distiller wanted to import Canadian corn to make Canadian whisky and export to the United States for the Yankee to drink, he got ninety-nine per cent of a rebate on the duty he paid on the corn. But if a Canadian cattle grower, a Canadian farmer, wanted to import American corn to fatten Canadian cattle to ship to the British markets he had to pay the duty and he got no rebate. This government came in and they said : That is unfair to the man who fattens Canadian cattle and at the same time it gives an undue preference to the man who makes Canadian whisky. They say that if a man wants to import American corn to fatten Canadian cattle for the British market he shall stand upon the same basis as the Canadian distiller. And that is why my hon. friend rose in his place to-night as the champion of the Canadian distiller for the purpose of manufacturing whisky for the American drinker instead of supplying the British consumer who wants to eat Canadian beef fattened upon American corn.
The hon. gentleman speaks about Ogdens-burg and Chicago. Do I understand the hon. member for East Elgin (Mr. Ingram) to say that a farmer w'ho fattens a bullock near Ogdensburg has to kill it or ship it to the city of Chicago to be killed, and then ship it all the way back to Ogdensburg in order to sell it to the consumer in Ogdensburg ?


Andrew B. Ingram: Does the hon. gentleman want an answer now ?


Mahlon K. Cowan: Most decidedly, I would like to hear an answer to that.


Andrew B. Ingram: I gave the hon. gentleman credit for more sense than to make such a statement. I have always advocated, as a protectionist-and I believe no protectionist does otherwise-that the nearer you get your farmer to the market the better it is for him. I never supposed that a farmer would fatten stock at Ogdensburg and send it to Chicago to be killed and then bring it back again. If that is the hon. gentleman's idea of trade matters, then I should not think he would be very hard to answer. While I am on my feet, as the hon. gentleman is dealing with corn

	-


Mahlon K. Cowan: No, I am not asking about corn ; I was speaking of bullocks-I stick to that word-and I understood the hon. member for East Elgin to plead that because the farmers near Ogdensburg were overcome by competition with meat from the city of Chicago


Andrew B. Ingram: No.


Mahlon K. Cowan: Every man who heard him understood that was his argument.


Andrew B. Ingram: I will speak again for my hon. friend's advantage ; he is not very clear. What I said was that the difference between the neighbourhood of Windsor and the neighbourhood of Ogdensburg must be considered. In the neighbourhood of Ogdensburg the farmers do not raise cattle to the extent they do near the city of Windsor, for the reason that the former do not find a favourable home market at Ogdensburg. Why ? Because the frozen meat brought into Ogdensburg from Chicago by cold storage gives them such an unfair competition that they cannot compete with it.


Mahlon K. Cowan: Now I think I understand the hon. gentleman. He means that the farmers near Ogdensburg do not find as ready a market for their beef as the farmers near"the city of Windsor, on account of competition from the city of Chicago, which drives the people of Ogdensburg from the home market What better argument then does my hon. friend want for the farmers of the county of Essex, when he considers that the city of Windsor, or the county of Essex, lies 400 miles nearer to Chicago than the city of Ogdensburg ? Whatever the reason may be, whether it is duty or no duty, granting that it is the duty, then do I find that my

lion, friend is complaining against this government for preserving the duty ?


Andrew B. Ingram: Not at all ; 1 am finding fault because they do not increase it.


Mahlon K. Cowan: Why do Jou want to increase it when there is no complaint from the county of Essex, which lies 400 miles nearer Chicago than Ogdensburg, and when there is a complaint from the state of New York, where the higher duty prevails and not from the county of Essex ? I want to tell my hon. friend that seven years have come and gone since the wiser policy was inaugurated. Let me tell my hon. friend from East Elgin that if he will go into the matter of the shipments of cattle and meats from the United States into Canada, or of farm products from Canada into the United States, he will find by the statistics of the two countries that every farmer in the Dominion of Canada sells $5 worth to the Americans for every ifl that an American sells to Canadians in farm produce.


Richard Blain: What kind of farm produce ?


Mahlon K. Cowan: All kinds. I will tell the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Blain), who is now looking up the statistics, that last night I listened to him, and I listened to the hon. member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk), when they were discussing the question of market-garden produce ; and if he will take farm produce, he will find that every Canadian in the Dominion of Canada sells $5 worth to the Americans for every $1 that an American sells to the Canadians. Now,
I do not want to be misunderstood, Mr. Chairman; I do not want to go upon the record as saying that that is a fair comparison.


Richard Blain: Oh, oh.


Mahlon K. Cowan: True; but I do not want the hon. gentleman to fall into the error that Mr. Watson Griflin fell into in St. John. When you are quoting exact figures and exact percentages, remember that you are dealing with a nation of five and a half millions alongside a nation of eighty millions. When you start out by dealing with the percentage of purchases from the 80,000,000 of the United States instead of with sales from the Canadian people to the 80,000,000, then you fall into the same error in argument that I am to-night apologizing to the committee for advancing. It is an unfair comparison; but if it is fair for you to indulge in percentage of purchases, it is equally fair for me to indulge in percentage of sales. I will go a step further, and I tell the hon. member for Peel that he can place the population of the Dominion of Canada at 6,000,000 and of the United States at 75,000,000, and he will find that every Canadian in the Dominion of Canada sells to the American republic ?5 worth of merchandise for every ?1 worth of merchandise that every American sells to the Canadian.


Mahlon K. Cowan: I go one step further, and I tell him that when he comes down to the question of farm produce-yes, Mr. Chairman, and he can include in that bananas-yes, he can include pine-apples, and lastly, he can go to the high ideal of politics of hon. gentlemen opposite, and he can include peanuts -put that in the category also, and I tell him that every Canadian in the Dominion of Canada sells $4 worth of farm produce, even including pine-apples, bananas and peanuts, to the American people for every $1 worth that they sell to Canadians. And the sooner hon. gentlemen opposite get out of their swaddling clothes and realize that one Canadian can get a better meal off sixteen people in the United States than sixteen people can get off one Canadian, the better it will be for the hon. gentlemen opposite.


Richard Blain: Mr. Chairman, I thought a circus was going on in some other part of the city, but it appears a portion of it is left in the House of Commons for us to deal with.


Mahlon K. Cowan: That is since the hon. gentleman rose to his feet.


Richard Blain: The question of farm products is the question under consideration. My hon. friend has made a very sweeping statement but has given no facts to the committee. May I be permitted to ask the hon. gentleman to name one article of farm products we export to the United States more than we import ? Would the hon. gentleman say one ?


Mahlon K. Cowan: Yes.


Richard Blain: Does the hon. gentleman say we export more than we import of farm products?


Mahlon K. Cowan: If the hon. gentleman wants to know what we import I say bananas, peanuts, oranges, pineapples.


Richard Blain: The hon. gentleman cannot play anything but the clown. We are not responsible for that and I am sure the hon. Minister of Agriculture will not feel grateful to the hon. gentleman for interrupting his estimates in this way. My hon. friend made the statement a few moments ago that we exported more farm products to the United States than we imported.


Mahlon K. Cowan: No, no ; pardon me.


Richard Blain: Yes, yes ; none of your nonsense. My hon. friend made that statement.


Mahlon K. Cowan: No. I am satisfied that the hon. gentleman for Peel does not want to be unfair. He may have misunderstood me.


Richard Blain: I could not misunderstand the statement of the hon. gentleman, but I will give him an opportunity to make it again.


Mahlon K. Cowan: The hon. gentleman must see the unfairness and fallacy of comparing two nations, one of seventy-live million or eighty million and the other with less than six million, on the question of percentage of purchases. Percentage of sales would show on the other hand an equally fair statement for the other side. I did not say we export to the United States of any article a greater quantity or value than we import. We may but I am not prepared to say we do.


Richard Blain: You said so here.


Mahlon K. Cowan: No, no. If my hon. friend will listen to me I will explain. If my hon. friend will base his statement on seventy-five millions of Americans and five and a half millions of Canadians he will find that every Canadian sold five dollars worth to an American for every one dollar's worth that an American sold to a Canadian.


Richard Blain: I cannot understand the the hon. gentleman's explanation. It is entirely different from his former statement to the committee.


Mahlon K. Cowan: No.


Richard Blain: My hon. friend says ' no.' Surely my hon. friend has not been listening-


Mahlon K. Cowan: Will my hon. friend from Peel pardon me for a moment ? I will give him the exact figures as I have them. We sold to the Americans $50,000,000 worth of merchandise. That is, each Canadian sold $8.25 worth. They sold to us $128,000,000 worth or $1.60 for every American. In other words every Canadian sold to an American $6 worth for every $1 worth that an American sold to a Canadian.


Edward Hackett: What sort of an argument is that ?


Mahlon K. Cowan: If my hon. friend from Prince West (Mr. Hackett) will allow me


An hon. MEMBER.: That is rot.


Richard Blain: Just allow the hon. member for Essex to proceed.


Mahlon K. Cowan: Then our sales of farm produce amount to $8,000,000. That is $1.33 per head of the population of Canada.


Charles Eusèbe Casgrain: Not bullocks.


Mahlon K. Cowan: My hon. friend from Montmorency (Mr. Casgrain) cannot get the word ' bullock ' out of his mind. I am sorry I mentioned it. In fact I am sorry I did not mention cows because that would not have disturbed the hon. member for Montmorency. To go back to farm produce we sold over $8,000,000 worth and on the basis of six millions of a population that is $1.33 per head of the Canadian population. The Americans sold to us of farm produce $17,-
400,000, or call it seventeen and a half millions worth. That means 214 cents worth that every Yankee sold to a Canadian as against $1.33 worth that every Canadian sold to an American. Therefore, it justifies my expression that I thought six million Canadians could get a better meal off seventy-five million Yankees than seventy-five million Yankees could get off six million Canadians.


Richard Blain: I do not wish to follow those strange utterances of the hon. gentleman. I may say to hon. gentlemen opposite that I would not wish to make an exhibition of myself like that.


Mahlon K. Cowan: I hope that is not a reflection.


Richard Blain: As soon as my hon. friend gets quieted down we will proceed with the question under discussion. We were discussing the question of farm produce imported into Canada and exported from Canada to the United States. I asked the hon. gentleman a simple question and he has been unable to answer it. He made the sweeping statement that we exported more farm products to the United States than we imported, and when I ask him to give one fact in support of that statement he could not do so.


Mahlon K. Cowan: Me ?


Richard Blain: Yes.


Mahlon K. Cowan: Not at all. I pulled from my pocket a paper and from that paper I gave the hon. gentleman the figures. I can very readily understand, that, after reading the speech of Watson Griffin, it is very difficult for my hon. friend to understand it. What I said was that we exported eight million dollars worth of farm produce and imported $17,400,000 worth.


Richard Blain: Pardon me.


Mahlon K. Cowan: Will my hon. friend pardon me when I tell him that six million people sold to the United States $8,000,000 worth of farm products and that the United States with a population between seventy-five million and eighty million, fifteen times our population, only sold to us $17,400,000 worth. I hope I will not be misunderstood now when I tell the hon. gentleman that every Canadian sold to an American $1.33 worth of farm produce while each citizen of the United States sold to us 214 cents worth; in other words that every Canadian in the Dominion sold to the United States $6 worth of farm produce for every $1 worth of farm produce that an American sold to a Canadian.


Richard Blain: Now that my hon. friend has repeated that four or five times I hope he is satisfied.


Mahlon K. Cowan: And I hope you understand it by this time.


Richard Blain: Surely my hon. friend does not want me to understand the figures that were handed to him by the hon. member for Brant (Mr. Heyd) because he does not understand them himselt.


Mahlon K. Cowan: No, these are my own. These others are the figures of my hon. friend from Brant. The figures of my hon. friend from Brant are down here.


Richard Blain: Perhaps that is a better explanation of why they are not good authority.


Mahlon K. Cowan: I have these in my inside pocket.


Richard Blain: I think my hon. friend must have brought them in his pocket, but leaving that question aside my hon. friend was fasting some reflection upon the remarks I addressed to the House last night upon the trade between Canada and the United States in respect to farm products.


Mahlon K. Cowan: No, I supposed you were dealing with purchases instead of sales. No man is fairer than the hon. member for Peel ; I cast no reflection on him ; I did not challenge the figures he quoted. But I did blame him that he was dealing with purchases instead of sales. I dealt with sales. I do not say it is a fair comparison, but I do say that it is as fair an argument as for the hon. gentleman to deal with purchases.


Richard Blain: For the information of my hon. friend, let me point out that last year, 1903, we imported from the United States butter to the value of 8137,054 ; cheese to the value of 830,401 : eggs to the value of $121,262, or $289,317 worth of these three farm products. Now, we exported to the United States last year, butter to the value of $10,225 ; cheese to the value of $7,779 ; eggs to the value of $6,436, or a total of $24,440 that we export to the United States ; as against $289,317 that we imported from the United States, or a balance of $264,877 against us. Does the member for Essex think that is fair to our farmers.


Mahlon K. Cowan: Multiply that by fifteen and see where you land.


Richard Blain: That is simply drawing a red herring across the track. Is it fair that the American farmer can send his pork to Canada paying a duty of two cents per pound, while the Canadian farmer will have to pay a duty of five cents per pound to send his pork to the United States ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I do not think it is fair to discuss the tariff in this committee. Perhaps it would be better for us to get back to the item.


Richard Blain: 


Richard Blain: I did not introduce the discussion. I agree with the suggestion of the Minister of Agriculture.


Andrew B. Ingram: I do not wish to prolong this discussion further, but I have to point out


The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr. Holmes).: I had intended to call the attention of the House to the fact that we have travelled a long way from the original question, and we had better perhaps get back to it,


James Gilmour: If you had done that a little sooner it would have been better. The first to raise the question was the minister himself, and if you stopped it then you would not have had the scene you had to-night.


Andrew B. Ingram: I know that my hon. friend (Mr. Cowan) does not want to misrepresent what I have said. He stated that I was in favour of free corn for the distillers-


Mahlon K. Cowan: I made no such statement.


Robert Holmes: I trust the hon. member. (Mr. Cowan) will not press the discussion on this point.


Mahlon K. Cowan: I ask the permission of the hon. member for East Elgin to .explain, and if the chair says we are both out of order, I have nothing to say.


Robert Holmes: This question can come up for discussion with greater appropriateness on another occasion. I thought it only fair to allow the member for Peel to answer the statement of the hon. member for Essex. The discussion should end there.


Andrew B. Ingram: The member for Essex accused me of supporting a government that was in favour of free corn for the distillers of this country.


Mahlon K. Cowan: I did not.


Andrew B. Ingram: Then I am glad you didn't.


Mahlon K. Cowan: I said that the hon. gentleman supported a government which gave the distillers 99 per cent of a rebate on corn that they imported from the United States to make whisky of to export back to the United States, while they did not give that rebate to the farmer who imported American corn to feed his cattle and wanted to export the beef back to the United States.


Andrew B. Ingram: The truth half told is worse than a lie.


Robert Holmes: I will have to rule that the discussion must cease at this point.


Andrew B. Ingram: I rise to a personal explanation. It was not the policy of the Conservative government


Robert Holmes: The hon. gentleman can make a personal explanation so far as the direct charge! against him is concerned, but in doing so he cannot enter into a general statement as to policy.


Andrew B. Ingram: I am within my rights and I will stand by my rights. I do not nor did I support such a policy as that described by the hon. member (Mr. powan) because there was no such policy in existence. The duty on corn was seven and a half cents against the distiller for all whisky sold in Canada. That is the policy I supported and that is the policy to-day. The starch manufacturer had to pay seven and a half cents on American corn, and if he exported the manufactured article he received a rebate of two and a half cents. I supported a duty upon corn, and why did I do so? Look at the figures and you will see the reason. In 1903 there was imported free of duty 6,033,898 bushels of corn, to compete with the farmers in the corn-growing counties of Kent, Essex and Elgin, and I represent the county of Elgin and the farmers of that county. Does the member for Essex favour the removal of duty on corn, when in his own county they produced 3,603,765 bushels of corn, according to the statistics of the Bureau of Industries, for Ontario, for the year 1902, and that amount of corn is valued at $1,463,129.


Mahlon K. Cowan: Corn was 20 cents per bushel higher after the duty was taken off than it was before.


Rufus Henry Pope: I think we were discussing something with reference to exhibitions and have rather wandered from the subject. I have had a great afternoon and this evening is a fitting complement to it. I went to the circus before six o'clock and have been at another circus ever since. I looked over the animals down there this afternoon, and while I found some larger animals there which we have not here, I do not think that the monkeys began to compare with the specimens we have in this House ; but coming back to the item under discussion, I understood from the Minister of Agriculture that one of the results which followed the Japan exhibition was a great increase in the export of butter and flour. I would like to ask him if it is really the case that we have increased our exports of butter to Japan as the result of that exhibition ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I said that we had been exporting butter from the government creamery in Alberta steadily some years back to a small extent, and that since the exhibition that export had increased very materially. I think that we are now exporting about four times as much per month as we did before the exhibition.


Rufus Henry Pope: Then general exports from Canada ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I have not examined the trade and navigation returns and cannot tell.


Rufus Henry Pope: I cannot believe that the hon. minister would intend to deceive this House by claiming results from exhibitions which have not followed them. The expenditure on these exhibitions has been questioned on the ground that it is very doubtful whether we get a good return for our money. In reply to that criticism, the minister told us that since the exhibition we had introduced Canadian flour into Japan and that Canadian flour was unknown there previously. Well, Sir, what do we find ? I find by the official returns that in the year 1900 we sent to that country 2.379 barrels of flour and that we have sent there as high as 3,035 barrels. But last year, 1903. we only sent 611 barrels. Evidently therefore the minister's statement that the exhibition was the cause of the introduction of Canadian flour into Japan was absolutely wrong. Not only was that statement wrong, but the trade, instead of increasing as a consequence of that exhibition, has decreased. Last year, after the exhibition, we only sent one-fifth the quantity of flour which we had sent three years previous. I do not like to say that the hon. gentleman intended wilfully to deceive this House, but the statistics are there, and he has just as free access to them as anybody else ; and when he stands up here and asks us to vote an increase of $50,000 for exhibition purposes, he owes it to his position as a minister, when he at-temps to justify that increase, to justify it on statements which are absolutely correct and not on imaginary facts.
With regard to butter, we have the same condition of things. Five or six years ago, we were shipping more butter to Japan than we did last year. Last year we shipped 8,000 pounds, but we shipped as high as 12,000 pounds three years ago. I am not going to say that these exhibitions do not do good. I hope they do. I think it is well 'that these exhibitions should be held in countries with which we can encourage trade, but I do not think they are of much use in countries with which we are doing less and less trade every year. It may be good policy to have an exhibit in St. Louis, which will show to intending settlers the resources of this country in the shape of minerals, products of the soil and so forth, but I warn the hon. minister, that if he wishes to have the respect of this House, he will see that what information he gives is based on fact and is not misleading.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: The hon. gentleman is slightly wrong in his dates, and what he

has said justifies the claim I made. Our exports to Japan of flour a few years ago were rather large, because certain millers sent a large consignment to that country. They sent that shipment as a result of the visit of an agent sent there by my hon. colleague the Minister of Trade and Commerce some four or five years ago. Following his visit, there was a considerable shipment of flour to Japan, but it was not advertised, the markets were not prepared for it, it was not a success, and the result was that in the few years following there was hardly any shipment of flour to that country at all.


Rufus Henry Pope: What few years ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Ending the 30th of June last. We sent some 3,000 barrels in 19001901. In 1902 and 1903 the shipments decreased. The exhibition in Japan opened in March of 1903 and did not close until August, 1903. after the end of the fiscal year 1903, which the hon. gentleman has quoted, and the results of the exhibition in Japan had no effect whatever on the trade of a year which closed before the close of the exhibition. The result of the exhibition on our trade have been in the fiscal year commencing July 1st, 1903. The figures which I quoted and the statement I made, have been absolutely correct within my own knowledge.


Samuel Hughes: What are the figures?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I gave the figures with regard to the shipments of flour.


Samuel Hughes: Can the minister give any figures in relation to the steady increase in the shipments of flour and similar products from the United States to Japan?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: No. I have stated what I know to be the absolute result of our flour and bread making exhibit in Japan. I know of orders placed in Canada to the extent of a considerable number of carloads as a direct result of our exhibit. ,1 stated also that as a result of our exhibit the butter export has increased to something like four times as much per month as formerly. I also stated that other people l'.ad received special orders. I recall a re: quest which came from the Consul General of Japan to put a certain person in \ okohoma into communication with butter makers and producers in Canada as they wish to open a direct trade and to place orders for such butter.


William Humphrey Bennett: Were any of these purchases made by the Japanese government in consequence of the war ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Not that I am aware of.


Mr. ARMSTRONG.: Is the butter produced in Alberta of the best quality we can Mr. FISHER.
*

produce in Canada ? If it is not, should we not send other shipments of the best that we have?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: The butter made at the government creameries at Alberta is of very high quality. I shall not say it is of the very best quality in Canada. The butter in Japan was not all from the government creameries:1 That from the government creameries compared favourably with any other butter on the Japanese market, but there was an exhibition of butter from Ontario which was superior to the butter of the Northwest creameries. There were a number of different exhibits there ; and I may say, generally speaking, that our butter compared favourably with any butter that was sent to the Japanese market from other countries.


Rufus Henry Pope: The hon. minister is changing his position. He told this House that Canadian flour was an unknown quantity.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I said that Canadian flour was unknown on the Japanese market as Canadian flour.


Rufus Henry Pope: But we had previously shipped Canadian flour as Canadian flour. The minister told us just now that the representative of this government went there five years ago and introduced this trial shipment 5 or 6 years ago. Yet the minister stands up and says that this exhibition was the means of the introduction of Canadian flour into this market when he knew it had been introduced 4 or 5 years ago.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: The introduction of 4 or 5 years ago was a failure, and as a result of that failure the shipments were not followed up. When the exhibition took place Canadian flour was unknown as Canadian flour in the Japanese market.


Richard Blain: Would the hon. minister explain what kinds of goods were purchased by his government and exhibited at the Japan exhibition ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: The articles sold were, rubber goods, paper and pulp, pulp wood, some products of pulp in the shape of pails and vessels of one kind and another, butter, canned goods, lumber in the shape of shingles, finished lumber and sashes, doors, Ac., some glass goods, furniture, a small exhibit of bicycles and bicycle parts, flour for the making of bread, a small exhibit or ropes and cordage, a few hams and bacon, cooking stoves, oil stoves, tinware, a baking machine and oven. There was some honey and a piano. Those were the sales. A large number of goods were of a perishable character, apples and fuits for instance, which we could not sell. By the time they had been exhibited they were no use. We were asked by the different agricultural colleges of the government in Japan for our exhibits of grain, &c. We

presented them to these Institutions as specimens of Canadian products and charged nothing for them.


Richard Blain: At D-24 of the Auditor General's Report, I see an item-
The Canada Furniture Manufacturers, Toronto, oak bureaus, 5 at $18 ; maple bureau, $23
Would the hon. minister say whether these articles were selected as first class products of Canadian makers of furniture, and would he regard this as a proper exhibit of what the Canadian people can do in the way of manufacturing furniture ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: No, they were selected as furniture likely to be suitable to the demands of the Japanese market. We could not sell the highest class there at all. We bought such furniture as would be suitable to that purpose. The items my hon. friend mentions came to $103 and as a matter of fact we sold there furniture to the extent of $568.


Richard Blain: Just those items?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I cannot say there was nothing else but that was the chief item. It may possibly have included the school desks which were sent over. I do not see any sale of school desks here.


Richard Blain: Would it not be possible when the hon. minister makes an exhibit at a place such as the Japan exhibition to get the Canadian manufacturers themselves to supply these goods, if the government pay the cost of freight, care of the exhibit, Ac.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: We tried to get the Canadian furniture manufacturers to do that, but failed. At Buffalo, the year before, this very association supplied us with furniture for our Canadian building and took it back after the exhibition, we paying some slight wear and tear. We tried to get them to do the same in the Osaka exhibition, but they said that Japan was so far away and the market so uncertain that they did not care to do it. Except flour, there was no part of our exhibit in Japan in which there was a better opening than in furniture. We had demands for it the moment it was shown, and could have sold it all within a week after the opening of the .exhibition. But we kept it there and sold it at the end. The articles were sold to high officials such as the minister of agriculture, the prime minister, one of the prince's and so on. They thought so much of the furniture that they were eager purchasers. They had not seen anything to equal it. I have urged upon the Manufacturers' Association to send an agent to Japan to take advantage of the opportunities opened up by the exhibition, for I felt sure that they could immediately work up a very large trade. But they have not
done so simply on the plea that their orders are so great that they cannot fill them and they have no time to attend to this foreign market.


William Humphrey Bennett: The minister has been badly informed as to the state of the furniture trade in Canada.


Thomas Inkerman Thomson: I am glad that Canadian furniture is so favourably regarded in the Japanese market. Judging from the sale of rubber goods from that exhibition there should be a good market for these. I understood him to say that the rubber goods were sold for $400, and according to the Blue-book I find that they only cost the country $220.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Of course, we added the freight charges which would be heavy on such goods.


Samuel Hughes: But they would not be $200.


Thomas Inkerman Thomson: What is the hon. minister's explanation of this sale of rubber goods that cost the country $200 for $400.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: That is the figure in the statement furnished me by the officers in the department.


Mr. T. I. THOMPSON.: And does the hon. minister credit it ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Yes.


Thomas Inkerman Thomson: The hon. minister does not believe it is the same as the statement about the flour ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Yes. The statement about the flour was correct.


Uriah Wilson: I am sure the minister is wrong when he says the freight on rubber goods would be high. You could hardly find goods that would pack closer and be less expensive.
MrJ FISHER. The figures I have given from this list should be divided by two. These statements are in yen, the Japanese dollar, and not in the Canadian dollar. I did not notice the mark when I read the figures. The price at which the rubber goods sold would be $200, not $400.


Samuel Hughes: When the hon. gentleman speaks of Japan being a splendid field for our furniture, I suppose he includes chairs. Did he educate the people there to sit on chairs ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I did not need to do so. There are in Japan a large number of people, especially in government and other offices, who use chairs. Desks are also in demand,. One <of the things that they most required was the roll-top desk. My hon. friend (Mr. Sam. Hughes) knows a great deal about Japan, but he may not

be hware that In the houses of well-to-do Japanese there are quite commonly one or two rooms furnished in European style, partly for convenience of strangers and partly because there are many Japanese who have lived in Europe or America and who, when they return home prefer to live, to a certain extent at any rate, in European style.
Mr. BLA1N. The explanation the minister gave as to the money would apply in the case of furniture. What, then, was the furniture sold for ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Half of what I said. Instead of $658, it was 658 yen, or $329.


Richard Blain: So this furniture cost $403.07, and was sold at a loss even without allowing anything for freight rates ? Does he then, regard the market for furniture as so very hopeful 7


Andrew B. Ingram: Do I understand that this item covers the exhibition at Winnipeg 7


Sydney Arthur Fisher: No, that is covered by a special item which we passed some weeks ago.


Rufus Henry Pope: I understood the minister to say that we were not sending any live stock down to St. Louis. I wonder if that accounts for the items I see in connection with the St. Louis exhibition. Here is an item for Shorthorn bull head, $25, and one for a Hereford bull head, $41.88. Are we sending these bulls' heads in order that the visitors to the St. Louis exhibition may know that we do breed cattle in this country 7 And, if that is the object why should we have selected the bull's head. Why not take down the whole bull, or the more essential parts of the bull. I think it would have been better to send down the whole bull than the bull's head. This bull, I think, would be pretty dear. I do not know what the price of a bull would be on the basis of $41.88 for the head, and why should we pay more for a Hereford bull's head than for a Shorthorn bull's head 7 And what is the prejudice against other breeds 7 If we are to have an exhibit of bulls' heads, why not include the Jersey, the Guernsey, the Holstein and other breeds so that there may be no favouritism 7 The breeder of Shorthorns in this country may feel pleased to know that the bull's head has gone down. But he would be better satisfied if the whole bull had gone.
I am not up in scientiflc agriculture as the hon. gentleman is, but there may be some reason why he bought this head and sent it down there. Now, so far as the other breeds are concerned, I think the discrepancy in the price of this Hereford head will cause trouble, because it is not going to be pleasant to the Durham men or the Shorthorn breeders to know that a greater value is placed upon the Hereford than upon other Mr. FISHER.
breeds. Then there is the Jersey man with no bull there at all, what is he going to do 7 And the Guernsey man, the Galloway man, the Polled-Angus man, the Holstein man- none of these men, with whom these breed! are favourites, will have any bulls representing them, or any bulls' heads representing them at this exhibition. I would call the attention of the Minister of Agriculture to the fact that his department is liable to become unpopular if he selects out a head here and a head there, and leaves all these other important breeds unrepresented-and deadheads, as an hon. friend near me suggests.
I would suggest that the minister take into consideration whether it would not be better to send the whole bull properly equipped down to St. Louis, one that would do full credit to the breed he is supposed to represent. The hon. gentleman might make some arrangement with the government at Washington. If there is any difficulty about [DOT] getting them into that country, he pught to be able to make some special arrangement -perhaps not for the cows or the heifers, but for bulls, a real genuine, complete bull of each of the several breeds. I would suggest that the minister take this into his careful consideration, because I think it is unfair that he should only send the heads of two bulls down there and leave the other breeds unrepresented.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I would just say .to the hon. gentleman that these heads he speaks of were bought for decorative purposes in the agricultural exhibit there.


Rufus Henry Pope: That may be ; but I do not think it would look proper to practical farmers-we should all try to be practical farmers -that the head of the bull is the essential decoration of the bull. I do not think we should look upon it in that light. I think we should send the animal complete in every respect.


Robert Johnston: I understood the minister to say that he had received communications from the Breeders' Association of Canada with regard to sending live stock to the St. Louis exhibition, and that lie now has the subject under consideration.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I explained that a few minutes ago.


Robert Johnston: The Breeders' Association hold the best stock in the Dominion, and unless the United States government will allow them to go in there and make a good show, I am afraid that the reputation of Canadian stock will suffer. I do not think it would be wise for a few individual farmers to send in stock that is not of the highest character, as Canadian stock would be belittled in the eyes of foreigners who go there.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Under the arrangement we propose only first-class animals will be likely to go, as it will be only in case they

get good prizes that they will receive assistance.


Robert Johnston: I do not think that we can get a good exhibition of our stock there if individuals have to take cattle at their own expense and run all risk. I fear the best cattle of Canada will not he there.


John Dowsley Reid: Could the minister give the total amount that was paid for goods for the Japan exhibition, and the amount leceived for the sale of those goods at that exhibition ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I could not give the total amount paid, because it is involved in a lot of small items which I have not added up yet. The total amount received was in the neighbourhood of $10,000, but the total amount paid was a good deal more than that.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: I understood the minister to say that the total amount paid on account of that exhibition was over $60,000, but he has only received $10,000 back. Does the former amount include salaries ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Yes ; salaries, cost of installation, freight on goods and all preparations for the exhibition. 1 -would point out also that many of these goods were perishable. We had to buy a large amount of fruit, for instance.


John Dowsley Reid: I would ask the minister again about the question of furniture. No doubt his remarks will be carefully read by the manufacturers of furniture in this country. Now, the minister said that there was a good market in Japan for furniture. I would like to know how he thinks he would be encouraging furniture manufacturers to ship goods to Japan in face of the fact stated by him that he paid $400 for furniture and paid freight on it, and only received about $300 for it after he was through with it. In other words, are we to understand that the commissioners were not able to dispose of these goods at their actual cost ? No doubt he got them at a very low price.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: The regular market price.


John Dowsley Reid: Together with freight added. The commissioner was not able to get more than about 50 per cent on the dollar, because $400 worth of goods, together with the freight, would probably be $600, and the minister says he only got something like about $300. The hon. minister stated that they got a sum of about $300. I suppose the hon. minister feels that the commissioner did his duty while there, and got the actual market value for these goods. If so, he must admit that the amount received was only about 50 cents on the dollar, so that the manufacturers of furniture would not receive more than 50 cents on the dollar upon the amount they charged the government. How does the hon minster make out 132
that that was encouraging the manufacturers to ship goods to that country ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I may say that I based my statements inr regard to the market that we have there for furniture on the actual prices that are charged there for European and American furniture. Individuals in Japan came and asked what this furniture could be laid down there for and they said that they had paid larger prices for inferior goods. We had to sell the goods that had been there on exhibition during the whole summer and I daresay that my commissioners were not able to get the first hand price for any of them. I know as a matter of fact that some of these goods were sold very low to people of importance in whose hands we wanted to place them for advertising purposes, and I am not quite certain but that some of it was even given away for that purpose. The total of this amount was the actual cash received but I would not for a moment allow it to be held that these prices were the total value of these goods had they been placed first hand on the market or had they been offered in the ordinary market.


John Dowsley Reid: I have had a little experience myself in regard to goods at exhibitions and I have always found that goods that have been made specially for an exhibition are a little better that the ordinary goods.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: These goods were not; they were just ordinary trade goods.


John Dowsley Reid: We generally get a little higher price. The government had that exhibition in Japan for the purpose of encouraging trade and the hon. minister says now that he has found out from the manufacturers of furniture that there is a good market in Japan. He has worked it up for them, and he has said to them : If you will send your goods there you will get a good market at paying prices. Will the hon. minister assume the responsibility of allowing any manufacturing industry to send a consignment of goods to Japan and guarantee that they will bring the actual cost of production in this country ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: No, that would not be the government's work. The government would not undertake to do that. The country would not ask the government to do that and the House would not support the government in doing that. The point is that by the exhibition of Canadian goods we showed to the people of Japan the character and quality of the goods that can be produced in this country. We must then trust to the ordinary channels of trade to follow that up, and it is only if the ordinary channels of trade will follow it up that the trade can be established.


John Dowsley Reid: Have tliere been any shipments made since that exhibition ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: The furniture association have not taken the steps we asked them to take:	When Mr. Hutchison, the commissioner, and Mr. Burns, the secretary of our exhibition there talked matters over with them they said that they were so busy with their work here that they did not care to undertake shipments to Japan at the present time.


Richard Blain: If I understood the hon. minister correctly at the outset he made a statement to the committee in regard to four 1 or five exhibitions. Would the hon. gentleman say how much he expects the total cost of the St. Louis exhibition to be and how much the probable cost of the other exhibitions that he mentioned will be ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: This is an item of $200,000 which I am asking now for next year.
I am expecting to apply about $125,000 of this to closing up the accounts in connection with the St. Louis exhibition. That will leave about $75,000. When I asked for that item I was discussing the question of an exhibition in South Africa. Since then I have received information of the organization which has led me to believe that it is not of a character that we ought officially to take part in. But, I have also officially on behalf of the government, accepted an invitation to take part in the universal exhibition at Liege which is to open on the 1st of May next year.


Richard Blain: About how much do you expect to expend there ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: About $50,000, somewhere in the neighbourhood of the amount we expended at Osaka,-possibly not so much as Lifige is a little more accessible than Osaka.


Richard Blain: What will be the total cost of the St. Louis exhibition ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: About $325,000.


Mr. BIRKETT  .@: And those others ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I want to have about $25,000 available so as to be in a position to take part in these other exhibitions which 1 have mentioned.


Samuel Hughes: Has the hon. Minister of Agriculture ever looked at the question in this way ? There is an expenditure of $325,000 on the St. Louis exhibition. I had the honour of being the only member of the House of Commons who voted against the payment of a large sum towards the expense of making an exhibition at the World's Fair. Would it not be better to take that sum of money and spend it on Immigration ? If the hon. minister would take that $325,000 and apply it to immigration it would bring out to Canada several Mr. FISHER.
thousand immigrants. I should imagine that it would bring out about 10,000 people. Does not the hon. minister think that that sum of money expended in bringing 10,000 selected immigrants to the shores of Canada would be infinitely better employed than if it were spent in this flimflamming around St. Louis and other places ? I think the money should be voted to the Department of the Interior. My own personal opinion is that these exhibitions do not do the country one particle of good.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I do not agree with the hon. gentleman.


Samuel Hughes: And I am of opinion that if the money were expended in the other way which I have suggested, better results would "be achieved.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I am very glad that my hon. friend from Victoria (Mr. Hughes) has brought that question up because it is one which has influenced my colleagues and myself in regard to these exhibtions at St. Louis and Liege. We are getting a very considerable number of Americans from the western part of the Union.


Samuel Hughes: Through the energy of the Interior Department ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Through the energy of the Interior Department. My hon. friend the Minister of the Interior (air. Sifton) quite coincided with me as to the advisability for immigration purposes of having a representative exhibit in agriculture, forestry and mineral resources at St. Louis. Mr. Hutcheson was at St. Louis three or four weeks before the exhibition opened and during that time he was besieged with inquiries as to the opportunities of the Northwest for immigration purposes. In our building at St. Louis my hon. friend the Minister of the Interior has a staff of immigration agents who are distributing literature and imparting information in regard to the Northwest. I had quoted to me tonight by a gentleman who was at St. Louis a little while ago with the press party there an incident which illustrates the effect that our exhibit at St. Louis is having. He said : I was talking with a gentleman, an editor, from Kansas and he said to me that he had never been able to understand how it was that their best citizens were leaving the United States and going to Canada but since he had seen the Canadian exhibit at St. Louis he did not wonder at it because we showed up there magnificently in comparison with their own western states. I have seen already, and I dare say1 hon. gentlemen opposite have seen, references made to the Canadian exhibition at St. Louis, and it is declared that the exhibition is not only creditable to Canada but that it is an eye-opener and surprise to the people of the western states and I venture to think it will be one of the strongest inducements for immigra-

tion into the Northwest and I am glad to .get this endorsement from my hon. friend of this expenditure.
Tracadie lazaretto, $5,500.


Samuel Hughes: Are the lepers increasing or decreasing ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: There are always in the neighbourhood of twenty or twenty-five.
Public Works Health Act, $3,000.


Andrew B. Ingram: What is the cause of the decrease 1


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Last year I asked for $4,000, and we did not spend $3,000 ; but I warn my hon. friends that when I made the decrease I had not realized the necessity of the construction of the new t*ancontinental railway, and in my suppplementary estimates, I am afraid I will not only have to restore the decrease, but to ask for a couple of thousand more. I think it very necessary that on the construction of the new transcontinental railway, we should take special precautions to avoid such difficulties as arose on the Grows' Nest Pass.


Richard Blain: Did the minister expect that the Transcontinental Railway Bill would be defeated in the House ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: No. But to tell the truth I didn't think of it when I made up this
item. Notwithstanding that we have not passed a great many items, I feel that consideration is due to hon. gentlemen opposite, and I shall move that the committee rise, report progress, and ask leave to sit again
Some resolutions reported.


Charles Eusèbe Casgrain: What business to-morrow ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I think we will proceed with the quarantine estimates and perhaps the estimates of the Minister of Marine. We will proceed with some Bills first.


Charles Eusèbe Casgrain: Will you go on with the Militia Bill ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: No, and as the Minister of Justice is not here we will not proceed with liis Bills.
On motion of Mr. Fisher, House adjourned at 11.30 p.m.	[DOT]

Fbiday, June 3, 1904.