1905-06-05

[Stage Direction]
Mr. LEONARD-by Mr. Foster-asked :
1.	Is the government or the Prime Minister aware that the leading boards of trade of the country have adopted resolutions asking for the abolition of trading stamps ?
2.	Has the government or any of the members of the ministry promised a deputation of the merchants of this country to bring in a Bill prohibiting the circulation and the sale of trading stamps ?
3.	If so, will that Bill be introduced during the present session ?
4.	Is the government aware that this system of trading stamps is a heavy tax upon the general trade of the country ?
5.	Has the government, or has any of its members, had interviews or conversations on this subject with the attorneys of one or the other of the trading stamp companies ?
6.	Does the government or the Prime Minister know that the attorneys and lawyers of the principal trading stamp company, the Traders' Advertising Company, are the honourable the Minister of Justice and the honourable the Speaker of the Senate ?
Rt. Hon. Sir WILFRID LAURIER (Prime Minister).: 1.	The government is aware that many boards of trade of the country have adopted resolutions asking for the abolition of trading stamps.
2.	The government has promised a deputation that it would consider the advisability of introducing a Bill to prohibit the circulation and sale of trading stamps.
3.	That matter is still under consideration.
4.	The government is aware that it is alleged that the trading stamp system is a heavy tax upon the trade of the country.
5.	The government has had a conference with parties representing both sides of the question.


Mr. BERGERON.: 6.	The government is not aware that the Minister of Justice (Mr. Fitzpatrick) or the Speaker of the Senate is attorney for the 1 lading Stamp Company. The government is aware that Hon. Mr. Dandurand, the Speaker of the Senate, and the firm to which the Minister of Justice belongs have acted before the courts of the province of Quebec, and now, I believe, before the Supreme Court, with regard to the legality of legislation passed by the provincial legislature of the province of Quebec on the subject of trading stamps. II am advised by the Speaker of the Senate that he has declined the application of the company to represent them with regard to federal legislation. Owing to the illness of the Minister of Justice, I am not in a position to communicate with him on the subject.


NORTHERN ALBERTA-STE1MER SERVICE.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. AMES-by Mr. Foster-asked :
1.	How many miles of navigable waterway (suitable for light draft steamers) are there within the northern part of the proposed new province of Alberta ?
2.	Bow many steamboats were engaged in this service (during 1904 ?
3.	What was the freight tonnage and the number of passengers carried by said steamboats ?
4.	What is the tonnage, horse-power and length of beam of each steamboat engaged upon this service ?
Rt. Hon. Sir WILFRID LAURIE It (Prime Minister). The government has no official information as to the number of miles of navigable water there may toe in the northern part of the new province of Alberta, unless such information is to he found in the reports of surveyors. The matter will be investigated, and if such information is found it will (be brought down. The government has no official information of the number of steamers engaged in this service for the year 1904.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. Sir FREDERICK; BORDEN (Minister of Militia and Defence) moved that the House go into committee to-morrow to consider the following proposed resolution :
Resolved, That it is expedient to provide that the salary of the commandant of the Royal Military College shall not exceed $3,200 a year, and that the salaries of the staff adjutant, professors, instructors, assistant instructors and staff, shall be fixed, and may be readjusted from time to time, by the Governor in Council.
He -said : I beg to inform the House that I have obtained the consent of His Excellency the Governor General to the introduction of this resolution.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. Sir FREDERICK BORDEN (Minister of Militia and Defence) moved that the House go into committee to-morrow to consider the following proposed resolution :
Resolved, That it is expedient to amend the Militia Act, and to provide that the permanent force may be increased to five thousand men.
Hon. GEO. E. FOSTER.: While we are on that motion, it might be well for the Minister of Militia (Sir Frederick Borden) to give us some information concerning the reports that are abroad of the diminution of the militia force. I see that the minister is taking steps to increase the permanent force. I understood that that was opposed to his policy, and that he was in favour of increasing the miliitiai. What does this mean ?


Sir FREDERICK BORDEN.: In these growing days it is necessary, not only to increase the militia, but to increase the permanent force. II will give a full explanation of the point when this resolution is taken up for consideration. With reference to the question which the hon. gentleman (Mr. Foster) has put, I may say that my hon. friend from Ottawa (Mr. Belcourt) informed me a moment ago that he was going to ask that question, and I requested him to wait until to-morrow, when I expect to have a memorandum from the chief of the general staff, General Lake, which I will read to the House, for I think the matter is of sufficient importance to demand such a course being taken. In the meantime, I wish to say a single word, and that is that the so-called reduction of the militia is not a reduction in reality. There has been a reduction, I believe, in what is called the training establishment, but there has been no reduction in the general establishment of the active militia. I will give a full explanation to-morrow of what has been actually done.


Hon. DAVID TISDALE.: In the meantime may I ask the Minister of Militia a question, for I confess I do not understand his explanation ? If it is true, as stated in the newspapers, that the minister is reducing the strength of nearly all the regiments or battalions, how does it come that this is not a decrease of the whole ? Is he increasing the number of battalions or regiments so as to keep up the standard number of men ?


Frederick William Borden: The number of the active militia is increasing all the time, and the actual peace establishment- or the war establishment, either-has not been diminished ; it is the training establishment that all the talk is about. I do not wish to go into that point now. But perhaps I ought to add this word, that, as compared with the training establishment of 1904, there has been practically no change
at all. But to-morrow I will give full details as to what has happened.


David Tisdale: 
Frederick William Borden: That is the idea.


David Tisdale: Still, the standard of
36,000	or 40,000 is not increased-


Frederick William Borden: It is considerably over 40,000 now.


David Tisdale: But the idea used to be that it was necessary to train that many. Now as I understand, although you keep up the nominal strength you propose by regulation to say that only so many of them shall train, even though the regiment may be filled up to full strength. I remember once having that very question brought up at camp. I had a regiment of the authorized strength and they were not going to pay it. I declined to take any pay at all, and I said I would arrange the pay and would march the men home, because I was within the establishment. I understand that you propose by regulation to say that although you have 40,000 men in the establishment you will not allow more than 30,000 or 35,000 to train.


Frederick William Borden: A certain number.


David Tisdale: You will not allow a commanding officer, even though he is able to keep up to the full establishment, to train them all.


Frederick William Borden: I am sorry the discussion could not be allowed to go over until to-morrow, because it is a little awkward to give an answer on a technical subject, which is entirely in the hands of the military members of the Militia Council, without having the papers before me. I expected to have them here and they should be here.


David Tisdale: It will do to-morrow.


Frederick William Borden: I would like in this connection to remind my hon. friend that two or three years ago there was a reduction of the training establishment which was recommended by the then military adviser of the government.


David Tisdale: For that year.


Frederick William Borden: For that year, and I wish to say with regard to this alleged reduction of the establishment, that it is simply a reduction in the training establishment for the year and as a mat-

690S
ter of fact so far as the city establishment is concerned, there is no reduction this year, but authority for the training of even the number fixed must be obtained from year to year. That is to say authority must be given for the actual number to be trained each year before the training takes place.


REPORT PRESENTED.
[Stage Direction]
List of vessels registered in Marine Department of Canada as on the 31st of December, 1904.-Mr. Prefontaine.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. SYDNEY FISHER (Minister of Agriculture) moved that the House go into Committee of Supply.
George Eulas Foster: Before the House goes into supply, I would like to ask the First Minister if the Minister of the Interior has informed him as to whether or not patents in respect of the half-breed claims, about which we have been talking on two or three occasions, are being issued or whether the minister took any steps to delay the issue until the papers were brought down ?


Sir WILFRID LAURIER.: I cannot give any information to my hon. friend to-day, but I can inquire and give an answer tomorrow.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to. and House went into Committee of Supply.
Intercolonial Railway-working expenses, $2,000,000.
Wilfrid Laurier: In view of the fact that we cannot possibly prorogue before the 1st of July,-there is no suggestion that we can do so-and of the fact that it has become expedient to provide for certain expenditures for the current year, I would propose, with the consent of the House, to take up the two items, 109 and 110, working expenses, Intercolonial Railway, $2,000,000 and working expenses Prince Edward Island Railway, $60,000. If the House would agree to facilitate matters we could have a Supply Bill passed in order to provide for current expenditure, the *whole of the supplementaries having now-been passed with the exception of these two items. I am sorry to say they are important items, and I am also sorry to say that the Minister of Railways Is not here to give such a full explanation as he should on a matter of this kind. He intended to do so before his departure, but he had to leave on a domestic errand of some importance to him and he cannot be here before Thursday of this week. In the meantime I may say to the hon. gentlemen that this first item requires $2,000,000 extra money for working expenses of the Intercolonial Railway. In the supplementary estimates of the current year, there will be a similar item of $1,200,000 so that upon this occasion the Minister of Railways proposes to make the statement which he has to make every year on the policy of the government with regard to the Intercolonial Railway and the management of the railway, so the House will be given ample opportunity to discuss not only the expenditure of the coming year, but the expenditure of the past year also. If this be agreeable to my hon. friends we will take up these items and I shall give what little information I have to-day on the subject.


George Eulas Foster: This item was up me other day. and was allowed to stand at the request of the Minister of Railways who was not then ready to make a statement. Fie promised to be ready in a week or so and to make his statement. The great trouble about having the discussion on an item in the next supplementaries is that we have no knowledge at all as to when they will be down. If we are to judge from the general actions of the government they would leave it until about two days before prorogation and bring it down when the House is tired out, few members are here and it is almost useless to attempt to criticise it. If the Prime Minister could give some assurance that the supplementaries would be down in reasonable time and that the minister would take this up amongst the first items, so that on such an important matter as this we might have the House as fresh as possible for the discussion, I do not w-ant to interfere with the Governor General's arrangements.


Wilfrid Laurier: The request of my hon. friend is perfectly reasonable and if he will take my word I will give him positive assurance that we will take the item in ample time to have full discussion. I cannot say to-day exactly when the supplementaries will be brought down, but it will be at an early day, probably in the course of two weeks. If my hon. friend will take my assurance I will give all opportunity for discussing it. I have in fact requested the Minister of Railways to cut short his visit although it is important, connected with a domestic occasion, and he will be back at the end of the week.


George Eulas Foster: Under that state of circumstances I do not think we will trouble the Prime Minister to give a partial explanation. I am quite sure he would rather be out of the explaining which this requires. We will try and get the explanation much more fully from the Minister of Railways.


Wilfrid Laurier: I have no objection to that.
Prince Edward Island Railway working expenses, $60,000.


George Eulas Foster: The same thing applies to that I suppose ?


Wilfrid Laurier: Hear, hear.
Some resolutions reported.


Frederick William Borden: 



SUPPLY-CONCURRENCE.

[Stage Direction]
House proceeded to consider resolutions reported from Committee of Supply.
Civil government-Department of the Interior -salaries, including J. J. McArthur and C. A. Bigger, at $2,300 each, notwithstanding anything in the Civil Service Act, $166,254.
Mr. FOSTER, Mr. Speaker, I am not quite sure whether the subject to which 1 desire to draw attention comes under the Department of the Interior or the Department of Indian Affairs, but to make sure,
I will take it up on this item. The right hon. Prime Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) will remember that when he was putting through these estimates, the Minister of the Interior at that time being absent, he took some items for promotions in the Indian Department-I think it was-named the person to whom the promotion was to be given and laid down the policy that if he had arrived at the maximum of his salary promotion was his due. This sum was named in order to provide for that promotion. The principle was that the person should have arrived at the maximum, and the statement was made that in this case he had arrived at the maximum. That was information which I think was not correct. The gentleman who was mentioned by the Prime Minister as having arrived at the maximum has not arrived at the maximum by quite a considerable amount, but there are gentlemen who are senior in point of service who have arrived at the maximum, and I imagine this was a case of mistake and that another name should be substituted for the one that was mentioned. Clearly the Prime Minister was explicit in the fact that it was amongst other things length of service and having arrived at the maximum which rendered one eligible for promotion, and the circumstances being equal, the man who had arrived at the maximum should have the promotion rather than the man who had not. I ask the Prime Minister to make a note of it, so that nothing shall be done in the premises until it is looked into to see that a mistake is not being made. Just at the moment I cannot think of the gentleman's name who has come to the maximum of his class and who is older in service than the one whose name is mentioned.
Wilfrid Laurier: This is in the Indian Department, and I was acting minister at the time and received the instructions given to me. Since there has been a Minister of the Interior I have not looked into the matter. This vote can stand and I will get the information in the meantime.
Steamboat service between Canada and Mexico, $50,000.
IMr. FOSTER. Does any one know what the condition of the Canada-Mexico service is now ? It has been an appearing and vanishing quantity for some time ; I do not know in which category it is now.


Mr. PREFONTAINE.: That matter is still under consideration. Tenders were first asked for a service with Cuba and Mexico ; but the government of Mexico refused to subsidize any line which would call at Cuba. Therefore the question had to be considered as to whether there should be two different services, one for Cuba and one for Mexico. We have not yet received the last answer from the republic of Mexico as to what it intends to do in the matter.


George Eulas Foster: The minister's explanation was that there were two services contemplated, one on the Pacific coast and one on the Atlantic coast. I did not hear him say anything with reference to Cuba. I think my hon. friend has got the children a little mixed.
Mr. PREFONTAIN in. No. It is a fact that two services were proposed, one for the Atlantic coast and one for the Pacific coast; but there was nothing completed as regards a Pacific coast service.
National Transcontinental Railway-surveys, construction and other expenses, $290,500.
IMr. FOSTER. Perhaps the Prime Minister now would give some information as to what results have been reached by this National Transcontinental Railway Commission in its surveys. The Prime Minister will remember that on several occasions we recounted for his information what we gathered from the newspapers, but could not get from official sources. My hon. friend used to discount these sources of information somewhat, but they were all we could rely on. By this time I should think that we might expect the officers to give us a pretty good idea of the grades, length of line, curves, and what kind of working railway line could be constructed over the parts that had been surveyed.


Wilfrid Laurier: No, Mr. Chairman, I am sorry to say I cannot to-day give any more information than I have myself. The Minister of Railways, I think, Inis laid one or two reports of the commission on the table of the House. I do not know if my hon. friend has had an opportunity of reading them. I have not, but I think they are merely technical and do not go into that class of information which my hon. friend desires to have, at least as to the character of the country. As to the location of the line I think they are very minute and circumstantial and give a good account of the country, but I must say frankly to my hon. friend that I have not myself read the reports, I have only casual information as to their contents and I would not like to give information except what I have read myself. My hon. friend will, agree that that is the proper course to follow.


George Eulas Foster: If a man has not information he cannot give it. We will live in hope.


Wilfrid Laurier: No, my hon. friend will get it in print by and by.
Cattle quarantine-further amount required, $40,000.


George Eulas Foster: With reference to cattle quarantine an extra expenditure has already been made of some .$29,000. The right hon. Prime Minister will recollect that ever since this parliament has been a parliament and we have had quarantine established and have looked a little after the health of animals the point has been pressed upon the government of paying for animals ordered to be slaughtered by veteri-naries under the direction of the government. My right hon. friend will remember too that we have always been very cautious as to how far that principle was admitted, because, if it were fully admitted, no one could tell to what extent the expenditure could go, and it is also open to very great abuse as my right hon. friend will very readily see. Parliament had never sanctioned and no government had ever undertaken the policy of paying for the slaughter, or horses and cattle afflicted with certain diseases. It is a fact, I think, that the non. Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Fisher) takes a vote for cattle quarantine, and I think he feels that he is authorized to make certain .payments by Order in Council, but I think the right hon. Prime Minister will agree with me that no new po-hcy should be inaugurated in the way or the extension of those payments to such a degree that may entail paying out such enormous sums of money. By an extension made by Order in Council such as never was contemplated by parliament-and amongst all the discussion never received the assent of parliament-an Order V?. Council has been passed and the hon. Minister of Agriculture has already, he tells us, paid out about $29,000 and he has admitted that if it went on at the same rate as it probably would, a year would see $100,000 expended. He agreed with me when I said that if we carried out that policy in that way we would very soon be au expenditure of $500,000, or $1,000,000, or more. The point I raised was that it should not have been done without the previous authority of parliament after having the extension of such a policy discussed in parliament ana getting the consent of the people's representatives. Otherwise it must be a somewhat strenuous and, I think, unauthorized stretch of cabinet authority to involve the country in so much expense as that would cost simply by Order m Council. The reply to it is' a ready reply, but it is not at all satisfactory, that if parliament does not conclude to vote it then we will have to go back. That is put-tmg the cart before the horse. You have Sir WILFRID LAURIER.
the government pledged to such a policy and then you have the party behind the government, ready, as they always are, to carry out the government's policy in this respect; so that virtually, you force it on parliament. It seems to me that the better way is to come first to parliament, discuss it, give us the information as to what it will all amount to, and then, if parliament thinks fit to authorize the vote, the hon. minister has the right to expend under that vote. In this respect it was just the opposite, and I made the point-I think it is a good point and I did not raise it faetiously -that I did not think that ought to be done until parliament had authorized it either by specially assenting to a vote, which is one way, or by a particular enactment. It certainly will lead to a tremendous expenditure of money, but what is almost as bad it will also open the way to a great deal of improper practice unless yon can have sleuth hounds in almost every section of the country.


Mr. FISHER.: Mr. Speaker, I agree to a very great extent with what my hon. friend (Mr. Foster) has said, and I want to assure him that the action-in this particular respect was taken after very careful consideration and in consequence of the discovery of a state of affairs which seemed to call for some prompt action. I do not say, and I would not like to accept the theory that compensation should not be paid unless parliament has been warned of it. The theory and the practice of compensation are thoroughly understood when the vote for animal quarantine is passed. The Animal Contagious Diseases Act lays down the restrictions under which compensation for the slaughter of animals must be paid, and I think when that Act is passed and when the general vote for this purpose is passed by parliament, parliament does these things with its eyes fully open. I accept what my hon. friend says in this particular case about a new policy which had not been foreshadowed or debated and in such cases, if the circumstances will allow us to wait until parliament may be warned and the sense of parliament taken, I think it will be very much better. I would like to pursue that course, but at the same time I can quite understand cases arising, and I think in this particular instance such a case did arise, when it would be not in the public interest that action should be delayed until the meeting of parliament.


Mr. HAG  CART@: Do I understand the hon. minister to say that there was a vote for this particular purpose ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Not for this particular purpose. There is a general vote for the health of animals and out of that vote compensation for the slaughter of animals is paid. We have for many years paid compensation for hogs slaughtered for hog cholera and we have paid compensation for

cattle slaughtered for what is known as Pictou cattle disease. This is the general policy and it has been for many years. We have never paid for slaughtering horses for glanders except in a few eases. We have never adopted the policy of paying for horses which are affected with glanders. We took the action to which my hon. friend refers, because we found that this disease, which is a very dangerous and a very treacherous disease, had been spreading and the condition of affairs had come to the point where drastic action seemed to be required. It was only because of what appeared to be the necessity for this drastic action that the government'took the course which my hon. friend has properly described and they did it by Order in Council as the law authorizes them to do. In regard to the question which my hon. friend raises and in which I sympathize with him as to whether a new departure should be made which is going to involve such a large expenditure of public money and about which he thinks-I think rightly- that it is rightly-that it is advisable parliament ought to be consulted, I am quite willing to accept my hon. friend's suggestion, but I do it with the condition that where a condition of affairs arises which requires prompt action the authority of the Act which gives that power to the Council may be used in the public interest on such occasions and only on such occasions. I think that in this particular case such a state of affairs arose. We found, after trying for a long time to reduce the extent of glanders throughout the country without paying compensation and after the urgency of the case had been represented to us, that we had to do something to stop the spread of this disease. It was undoubtedly coming more prominently before us and we found a condition of danger existing that we had not appreciated or expected during the last session of parliament. For that reason we felt that it was our duty to act and act promptly in regard to it.


George Eulas Foster: To what extent was that a sudden, abnormal development, or a matter of great urgency ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: When I say ' sudden ' it was just this : We had been for some time slaughtering horses that were afflicted with glanders without compensation. We found a great many more cases than we had any expectation of finding or than we had any suspicion existed. We carried on the practice of slaughtering horses. Very urgent representations were made that we ought not to slaughter these horses without compensation being granted. If we did not slaughter them disease would spread more and more, and on one or two occasions my officers reported that they were in danger of their lives almost if they carried out our instructions because the people resisted, and protested against the slaughter
of their horses if they were not paid compensation. They held that if we paid compensation for hogs and cattle we should pay compensation for horses. I had either to cease to apply the regulations or I had to recommend that we should pay compensation, and an Order in Council was passed to a limited extent at first and afterwards applying	to all cases. My
chief veterinary who has just come back from the g. Northwest	tells me
that' as a result of the work we are doing, he hopes and believes this expenditure will decrease in the very near future. Last month it was heavy, it probably will be heavy for the current month, but after that we expect there will be a decrease. I trust that before two or three months we will find a material decrease in this expenditure per month, but I warn the House that I will have to ask a considerable supplementary estimate for the fiscal year so as to make sure that I will be in a good position to carry out this policy. I am advised that it will probably be necessary to pay compensation for horses in the Northwest Territories suffering from maladie du colt. We first discovered the existence of this disease a little over a year ago. It is a very insidious disease, and it has spread more extensively than we had expected. If we neglect it, it may attain the same proportions as tuberculosis in cattle or glanders in horses, but if we endeavour to suppress it now we hope to be able to stamp it out very soon. It is in the public interest that in the case of horses running at large in the Northwest this disease should be suppressed at once.


Mr. HAGGART.: If I understand the minister, there is an Act of parliament at present which authorizes him to do by Order in Council what he has done.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Yes.


John Graham Haggart: It seems extraordinary that the minister can make this expenditure without a vote of parliament.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Of course parliament has to vote the money.


John Graham Haggart: Yes, but you made an expenditure over the amount voted by parliament.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: No. The claims for compensation are in but I have not spent the money. I have not used more money than was voted, but I am waiting to get this money to pay claims which have been made.


Wilfrid Laurier: I would ask my hon. friend (Mr. Foster) to recollect that we have not violated the law either in the letter or in the spirit. We have authority from parliament to slaughter animals suffering from these diseases, but
6916

we have to take a vote of parliament every year for the money to pay compensation. Under this Act we have been slaughtering hogs for twenty years in different parts of the country, we have also slaughtered cattle and latterly we have had to slaughter horses suffering from glanders. We thought we could slaughter in a few isolated cases which were very serious without paying compensation, but the disease spread more than we^xpected. A man has just as much righr to be compensated for the loss of his horse as for the loss of his cow or his hog. t agree that if the expenditure should reach $200,000 or $300,000 a year, parliament should be notified in advance. This year we have a supplementary vote on account of the outbreak of a certain disease, but next year as we may have to expend on that item alone a couple of hundred thousand dollars, the appropriation will be contained in the next supplementary estimates.


John Graham Haggart: Parliament should have also the right to consider whether the compensation should be in full or in part.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: The Contagious Diseases Animals Act fixes the mode of compensation, and all payments in regard to compensation are made under the provisions of that Act.


George Eulas Foster: What I have not had made clear yet is that there was any extraordinary development of that disease which made it necessary for the minister to act at this particular time. There may have been ; but glanders has always been with us, and is here or there through the country more or less all the time. What has not been shown is that there was some sudden outburst of the disease, which operated as a menace to public property, something which, unless it was immediately dealt with would have entailed a tremendous loss on the country. I do not understand glanders to be that kind of a disease, or that there was a special outburst of it at this particular time, which rushed the minister and the government into an expenditure of $29,000 over and above their vote. I think it would have been fair for the government to have said : We will take up these claims and consider them, but we have no vote from parliament for this, and you will have to wait until we advise with parliament about it. I quite understand that if you slaughter a man's hog or his cow and pay him something for it, it is pretty difficult to say that if you slaugther his horse, you ought not to pay something for -it; but, after all, the resources of the country are limited, and you cannot do everything which, by parity of reasoning, you might be asked to do. A very important point made by my hon. friend here is that parliament ought to have a chance to discuss this whole matter and to fix the Sir WILFRID LAURIER.
amount and the mode of proceeding ; because there are dangers lying in this slaughter of horses and paying two-thirds of the value of the horse in every case. There is no reason at all for doing this unless there is the strictest effort on the part of the department to stamp out the disease and to prevent it coming into the country from outside. If you are going just to start an industry of paying for glandered horses, and allow the disease to come in and spread without dealing effectively with it, that is not defensible. You have to put the three things together, and very closely together if yoti expect to avoid tremendous expenditures. If the disease can be stamped out in a few years, so that it will be confined to a very small extent, that will be a great gain to the country and a legitimate effort for parliament to undertake in the way of co-operation. I think there ought to be co-operation, because it is helping the citizen to keep his stock in such a condition as to avoid loss.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: The whole principle of compensation under the Animals Contagious Diseases Act rests on what my hon. friend has just alluded to, that is, co-operation between the owner and the country at large. The payment is only two-thirds of the value, and under our regulations the value is fixed by the officer of the department who orders the slaughter. We have found that the valuation should not be fixed by local veterinarians, neighbours of the people whose animals were being slaughtered ; and therefore we have made it a fixed rule for several years back to have the compensation fixed by a permanent officer of the department, and to have the slaughter carried out only on his order or report. I think this is necessary in the interest of the taxpayer at large, and I have been pressing on my officers the importance of seeing that while this work is done properly and effectively, still great care should be exercised to avoid any unnecessary compensation. In regard to my hon. friend's contention that no case has been made out of urgency, I thought I had explained the condition which antedated the Order in Council. We have for some time been killing horses for glanders wherever found. We found a great many more rather suddenly during the last year. We continued to kill without paying the compensation. My hon. friend can quite understand that when one or two horses a month are killed, there is no great outcry or difficulty ; but when a hundred a month are killed there is an outcry which accumulates in force and makes the procedure very difficult ; and our officers were being resisted and obstructed in carrying out their instructions and. the regulations. Under these conditions we had either to suspend the regulations and let the disease spread, which I do not think would have been in the country's interest, or to make arrange-

meats for carrying out the regulations satisfactorily and effectively, and the only way we could do that was to pay the compensation. We therefore passed the Order in Council for that purpose. The emergency arose*under the conditions which I have described, and I think it is a legitimate reason. If we had waited until parliament met and provided the compensation, we would probably have had a continuous conflict between the officers of the department and the owners of the horses ; and if we had suspended the slaugther of'the horses during those months, we would have had a very material spread of the disease, which would have been injurious to the public interest, and which I do not think parliament would have supported me in allowing.
Mr. BARlt. Has any consideration been given to the subject of lump-jaw in cattle, which I suppose the minister is aware has broken out violently of late in some places in western Ontario ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: If that is so, it must be from some local cause, because we have not had any report of it. The law requires every veterinarian, and even every owner of animals, to report the existence of contagious disease within his knowledge ; but we have not had any report of the disease to which my hon. friend alludes. Lump-jaw is a disease which is not as a rule, carried from animal to animal. The matter from the affected animal is conveyed to the grass while the animal is grazing, and another animal eats part of that grass and thus becomes affected. But it is a disease that is quite curable in its early stages. I have known several cases to be cured in my own herd.


Mr. BARR.: I may say that the department was telephoned to in connection with the matter, and I understood that the answer which came back was that they did not pay compensation for lump-jaw if any animals had to be slaughtered.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: We have never paid for it.


John Barr: Is there a list of diseases in which compensation is paid ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: No, there is no list of diseases. The diseases I have mentioned are the only ones in which we have been in the habit of paying compensation. I may say that the Act authorizes the minister to pay compensation by Order in Council at any time. I am authorized by the Contagious Diseases Aui-mals Act to pay compensation for an animal which was slaughtered for lump-jaw, slaughtered by my officers, but I never have given an order for the slaughter of an animal for that disease, because, as I have stated, it is not a very widespread disease.


Mr. BLAIN.: The officers of the department, as I understand, have power to destroy a stable in which an infected animal is found. I would ask if, in the Order in Council in March last, compensation is allowed for a stable.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I do not think so, because I do not think we have ever contemplated the destruction of the stable. There have been a very few cases where we have destroyed the stables where hogs had been slaughtered, and where the stables were of such a character that it was cheaper to destroy and pay for them than to cleanse, disinfect and rebuild them. But we always give the owner the alternative, saying that if he will satisfactorily disinfect the buildings, they need not be destroyed.


Richard Blain: The minister will remember a letter that I read to the committee the other evening from Mr. Brumell, of Mono Road, Peel county, stating that an officer of the hon. gentleman's department had ordered an animal to be killed and the stable to be taken down. The writer of the letter pointed out that the stable cost $25, and he lost not only the horse but the stable as well. I want to know whether, in a case of that kind, the officer of the department having fixed the value of the horse, he would have any power under the Act to fix the price of the stable, and if so, would the stable be paid for ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I have forgotten the case the hon. gentleman mentions. But I will look it up before the supplementary estimates for next year come up.
Archives, $20,000.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I notice that concurrence has been given to item 30 of the main estimates for next year, that was passed on the 2Sth of February, and to which I call the attention of the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster). I intended on concurrence to ask that words be added to the item allowing that expenditure to be made contrary to the Civil Service Act. ,1 explained to the House the other night when passing the supplementaries for the current year, that until quite recently the Auditor General had considered that the archives vote was not governed by the Civil Service Act, but he has recently changed his mind, and consequently a number of employees engaged in this work, but who have not passed the Civil Service examinations, cannot receive their salaries. I think it would be unfair to turn these people out, and unless these words are added to the vote, I will not be able next year to pay some of these officers their salaries. Now, however, that the Auditor General has changed his mind, and considers that that vote ought to be paid subject to the Civil Service Act, I am going to ask the House to allow those words to be added. I was not aware that we were going to take up any of the items in the main estimates,

otherwise 1 would have been prepared to make this explanation sooner.


George Eulas Foster: Does the minister want the whole of that vote to be outside the civil service ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: No.


George Eulas Foster: I think the minister will have to mention specially the sums that he wants to be excepted, otherwise he will have to except the whole $20,000.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: That is not necessary. A good many of the officers have passed the civil service examinations. Until recently, the Auditor General informs my deputy, he never considered that that vote came under the Civil Service Act, and it was only during the present fiscal year that he informed my deputy that he had changed his mind, and having looked into the matter, thought that it ought to be subject to the Civil Service Act. If I was beginning work in that branch now I would only appoint men who had passed the Civil Service examination and who would consequently be subject to the Act. But before this information was given to me, some people were appointed, and some have been a long time in the service who had not passed the examination, and if this vote was taken as subject to the Civil Service Act these men would have to step out, and I would have to find others who had passed the examination. I could not give my hon. friend off-hand the details now, but I think if $5,000 of that $20,000 was allowed to be expended without the restrictions of the Civil Service Act, it would be quite sufficient, perhaps $3,000 would be sufficient.-


George Eulas Foster: I do not desire to see old officers lose their positions because of a change in the ruling of the Auditor General ; at the same time, I do not want to make the whole of the archives possibly outside of the Civil Service Act, as it would be if you made that amendment apply to the total vote. I wanted to know if the minister could specify the amount of the salaries that would be affected by the ruling of the Auditor General, or the names of the officers.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I could not say at the moment ; but I am sure that $5,000 out of the $20,000 would be sufficient.
Mr. FOSTER, The minister thought $3,000 might be enough.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I got $3,000 the other day in my supplementaries for this year, free from that restriction, but my deputy tells me he thinks it would hardly be enough for the whole of the ensuing fiscal year.


George Eulas Foster: Does the Auditor General's ruling affect all the salaries for 1904-5?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Yes.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: 


George Eulas Foster: Then I imagine that $3,000 would cover it all, because you have probably got enough to cover it for the year.


Mr FISHER.: No. One officer did not commence the beginning of the year, but about the 1st of January.


George Eulas Foster: Except $4,000.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Yes-as to $4,000, the Civil Service Act does not apply.


George Eulas Foster: I think that might go in.


Richard Blain: Are we to understand that only those who have passed the civil service examination will be employed in the Archives Branch ?


George Eulas Foster: Unless authority is given by parliament?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Yes. I would propose that this item be amended by inserting the words * $4,000 of which may be paid not-w-ithstanding anything in the Civil Service Act.'


George Eulas Foster: That would do for this year. For next year it can be made more definite.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Wilfrid Laurier: With regard to the item in the Department of Indian Affairs that was reserved, the salary in question was not that of Mr. McArthur or Mr. Bigger, but of Mr. Bray. Mr. Bray is acting as the chief surveyor of the department. When we had that item under discussion some time ago, I stated that Mr. Bray had reached the top of his class and that the object was to make him a chief clerk. The item provided in the estimates for another chief clerkship ; there were already five and we asked an appropriation for six. On the information given to me, I stated that Mr. Bray had reached the top of his class. In that I was in error; he has not reached the top of his class, but it is still thought in the department that he should be promoted to the rank of chief clerk. The reasons for this have been given to in the following words by the head of the department :
Mr. Bray was appointed on June 14th, 1884, as a third-class clerk in the survey branch. His salary was $800. He was promoted to a second-class clerkship on the 1st July, 1887, at $1,100, the minimum salary for that class, and he reached his maximum on July 1st, 1893. He remained a second-class clerk at a salary of $1,400 until the 1st July, 1899, when he was appointed chief surveyor with rank of first-class clerk, his salary for the first year not being increased.
Attention is drawn to the fact that owing to the death of the chief surveyor, Mr. W. A. Austin, in December, 1896, Mr. Bray assumed charge of that section of work. He was then a second-class clerk, and did not receive promotion to a first-class clerkship (which was Mr. Austin's rank) until the 1st July, 1899. This

fact is stated to show that Mr. Bray has not been rapidly promoted.
Mr. Brav is receiving promotion not because he is at the maximum of his class, but because the chief surveyor of the department is considered now to be entitled to a chief clerkship, not only on account of professional and technical qualifications, but because of Tfie large increase of work owing to the settlement of Manitoba and the Northwest Territories.
The department is now undertaking subdivision of reserves and the delimitation of boundaries which is constantly being called for
Mr. Bray is in charge of all survey and en-sin66ring improvements for reserves, dr3,in3.ge, roads, &c., and his position requires not only technical qualifications but good judgment.
For these reasons the head of the department has recommended that he should be promoted from the position which he now has to the position of chief clerk. Mr. Bray receives to-day a salary of $1,650, and by the statutory increase of $50 a year in four years more he could reach the maximum of his class, but the deputy head recommends that he should be promoted to the position for which provision is made in the estimate.
Mr. 1 OSTER, The emendation which has been made in the information rather forces a change of ground on my right hon. friend, which he takes with facility equal to that with which he has pressed the claim on the other grounds. I do not know that the ground is altogether satisfactory. The right lion, gentleman says that Mr. Brav has not been very rapidly promoted. Mr. Bray commenced his service in 1884, seven years later than one clerk in the first class and three years later than another clerk in the first class, and one year later than a third clerk in the first class, all of whom have therefore performed longer service, and are at the head of their class except in one case and close up to the head of their class in two other eases, so that on the ground of length of service in the department, Mr. Mc-Girr, especially as it stands there, has a right to the promotion rather than Mr. Bray, who commenced his service seven years 'ater. Taking the length of service, Mr. Bray getting now $1,700 and 'Mr. McGirr getting $1.90(*. Mr. Bray has had a more rapid promotion than Mr. McGirr, and has nothing to complain of in that respect. I do not see why it is necessary that a surveyor taking charge of a branch should be a chief clerk. If he has taken charge of the survey branch following the death of Mr. Austin, it might be a fair argument that he should receive an increase of salary if that were deemed right, but you are not only giving him an increase of salary but are putting him over the heads of those who have served longer and are thoroughly efficient clerks still. Then you are putting him in a branch above that of chief clerks, where he can come to the maximum of $2,500. It does not seem to me that it is fair treatment that the old and tried servants of the department, who have been 220
longer in the service, against whom, as I understand, nothing could be urged at all, but who are overlooked, against the principle which was so strongly advocated by the premier, that when a man got to the head of his class he ought to create a chief clerkship in order to promote him and not disappoint him. You do not want to disappoint Mr. McGirr any more than Mr. Bray, but Mr. Bray would not be stopped for two or three years, for he would get his increase while Mr. McGirr gets none, although he is seven years longer in the service and is a thoroughly efficient clerk. I am not .saying anything against Mr. Bray, but it does look like a forced promotion, and certainly leaves a bitter taste in the mouth, not only of those in that class, but in every class in the service, who seem to find out that even when they have done good service and longer service, for some reason they are not preferred, hilt are left in the old class whilst others are put over their heads.


Wilfrid Laurier: I have nothing to retract as to the principle which I laid down when we had the discussion on this before. There Is simply another principle which applies in this case. I stated on a former occasion that when a clerk had reached the maximum, if he was a good man and a deserving official, he should be promoted. I think so now ; and, as a rule, that the more aged should be promoted before those who are younger in the service. Still, my hon. friend would not take that as an absolute rule. There are reasons which I do not say apply to this case-for I know nothing of the merits of either of the men- but my hon. friend would not say that in all oases promotion should go by seniority. There may he cases where seniority ought to make way for special causes. I would not apply this rule to the present case, because, as X said, I know nothing of the men. If the case occurred in my own department, if the men were meritorious, I would promote both of them to chief clerkships, but the matter is not one in my own department and when 1 dealt with it I acted on the information furnished me. The information was erroneous ; I thought then that Mr. Bray was at the top of his class, and, so far as I remember, that wTas the chief reason given for the promotion. In this I was in error. The promotion is not because he is at the top of his class, blit it is that for the services he performed, and for the manner in which he performed these services and for his qualifications, he ought to be promoted to the rank of chief clerk. My hon. friend says : That may be true, but you pass over the head of another officer who is at the head of his class and who. is a good officer, and certainly it seems to me invidious to pass over one and not the other. I do not say no to that. It may be that there is I good reason to promote the other clerk, but i if -Mr. McGirr is not promoted that is not a
REVISED ED*iON

reason why Mr. Bray should not be promoted. I think my hon. friend will agree to that.


George Eulas Foster: I cannot agree to that.


Wilfrid Laurier: He ought to agree. Suppose that /Mr. Bray is qualified in every respect and is giving good service, and that the services which he performs are, in the judgment of the deputy head, such as would entitle him to promotion, my hon. friend would not refuse to promote him because there is another gentleman who is at the head of his class, and who may be also well qualified. The logical conclusion would be that there should be two promotions instead of one, but because one is not promoted it does not follow that the other should not be. I refuse to make it an absolute rule that in every case promotion should be by seniority. I do not think my hon. friend is" ready to commit himself to that principle.


George Eulas Foster: Certainly not.


Wilfrid Laurier: If promotion is not to go strictly by seniority, and if, in the judgment of the deputy head of the department, this gentleman. Mr. Bray, is entitled to promotion, it is no objection to say that he has passed over the head of another gentleman who is his senior in the service. That may be a case, not against the promotion of Mr. Bray, but in favour of the promotion of Mr. McGirr. In that case, I think the matter might be inquired into ; and, more than that, I think my hon. friend will agree, that he should not ask of me.


George Eulas Foster: I cannot accept my right hon. friend's argument or agree with him for several reasons. In the first place it is neither good ethics nor a good economical basis for a sound state of affairs. My right hon. friend will not say, that, because a deputy head, for reasons we do not know, recommends it, a man who has had a less service, who has been promoted more rapidly in the service and who is not at the head of his class by two or three years should be promoted into another class higher than that which he now occupies with the advantage of advancing yearly to $2,500, as in this case, and that a man equally as good in his service, longer by seven years in his term and who has gone to the maximum of his class should be passed over. If the circumstances are equal an injustice is being done-not perhaps an injustice because you put Mr. Bray up, but an injustice because you do not take up tlie claims of the one who has had longer service and who is at the head of his elass. An officer who makes such a recommendation ought to have some very good reasons for passing over Mr. McGirr, who has been seven years longer in the service than Mr. Bray. I am bound to stand up for the conditions of promotion which are length of service, fidelity and Sir WILFRID LAURIER,
capacity to do the work. Now then suppose that in point of fidelity, and capacity they are equal; Mr. McGirr has the advantage of seven years priority, he is at the head of his class and has been at the head of his class for years. He has a stone wall directly ahead of his. Mr. Bray has no stone wall ahead of him. He may go on for three years, making a step iu advance every year, and bettering his position. That is a condition which I think the right hon. Prime Minister should take into account. It is no argument that because he is not the Minister of the Interior he will allow the Deputy Minister of the Interior to perpetrate an injustice if it be an injustice. For the time being he is the Minister of the Interior and if an injustice is being perpetrated my right hon. friend has to take the onus of it. Does it seem fair that Mr. McGirr, an old servant who has been doing his duty faithfully, who has reached the head of his class and has been there for years, shall be allowed to stand there facing a stone wall, and that you shall take another man who is three years from the head of his class, boost him up and say ; go along, peace and prosperity and increased salary be with vou; we want you to get up to $2,500? That does not help the morale of the service and it is not fair treatment to other officials. Who recommends this ? The Minister of the Interior? One comes and another goes. We do not know whether the Minister of the Interior has been at the bottom of it. It may be that deputies sometimes have whims, sometimes have favouritisms, and it is the duty of the minister to find out whether or not an injustice is being done through some whim of the deputy. I think we ought to at least get a statement from the right hon. Prime Minister, that, if this vote passes, before it is put into effect, we shall have a full explanation from the Minister of the Interior and have an opportunity of seeing whether an injustice is being done to Mr. McGirr. I will ask my right hon. friend where he will be with the civil service if he takes the ground that the moment a clerk gets to the head of his class he is to be put into another class. That is a ground, which, I am afraid, my right lion, friend's colleagues, if they are careful thinkers, and look at the effect on the civil service of all this will say is not one based on sound principle. When you arrange your grades and when you have your different classes of service your theoretical idea is that within certain ranges of salary you get all you want for the service and you expect that these services will be performed within their theoretical ranges. Now and then, if a man has strong personality, excellent ability and shows merit and the like of that he will advance, but it must always be the case that a large proportion of those in the service must

keep within the bounds of the classes within which they are. But, if every time a man gets up to the top of his class, in the generosity of his heart and with the country's money, my right hon. friend will say : Boost him up into another class, he will have a lot of trouble on his hands in a short time.


Wilfrid Laurier: The very last reason which my hon. friend (Mr. Foster) gave is the best defence of this vote and of the promotion of Mr. Bray. I call the attention of my hon. friend to his argument. Where would the administration be, where would the ministers be, where would the country be and where would the treasury be if you admit the principle that the moment a clerk is at the head of his class he is to be hoisted up into another class ? I think my hon. friend wit] agree with me that we have to consider not only the length of service and the fact that a clerk has reached the head of his class but we have to look also into his qualifications. One man therefore might be entitled to promotion if he has not reached the top of his class and another man who has reached the top of his class might not be entitled to promotion.


George Eulas Foster: I want that shown.


Wilfrid Laurier: I think we have a pretty efficient service, but at the same time I think my hon. friend will agree with me that all the members of the service are not equally efficient. It is not sufficient to say that a man has been in the service for a certain number of years. He must also show that he has the qualifications that my hon. friend has enumerated of fidelity and capacity. I would add another qualification, that of the responsibility of the work that the man has to do. If a man like Mr. Bray is at the head of a very important branch of the department, I think it is a good reason why his claim for promotion Should be considered. As to the merits of Mr. McGirr. I know nothing at all. I do not know Mr. McGirr. I do not know what position he has in the service. It may be that the reasons which have been given by my hon. friend would entitle Mr. McGirr to promotion ; it may be that his fidelity, his capacity and the responsibility of the work which he has to do migfit entitle him to promotion in preference to Mr. Bray. If we apply the test of fidelity, capacity and the responsibility of the work done to the case of Mr. Bray It may entitle Mr. Bray to promotion, but if there is only one promotion to be given and if the qualifications of Mr. McGirr are such that he should be given the preference then it is a question to be considered by the minister who is in charge of the department. My hon. friend says that deputy heads sometimes have whims. All men are apt to have whims. That applies 220}
not only to deputy heads, but also to members of parliament, and perhaps a man might be considered qualified who is not qualified. However, if there is a promotion to be had, I have no objection at all that the merits of the candidates-I will not say candidates- shall be considered and that the one who is to be promoted shall be selected by the minister on the recommendation of the deputy head. In these matters the recommendation of the deputy head is not final although as a rule it goes very far towards forming the judgment of the minister in charge, and I think we had better leave the matter to the judgment of the minister in charge. I am sorry to say I have not that familiarity with the case which would enable me to give my own judgment. I simply take the representations which have been made to me.


George Eulas Foster: Well, we will take It up again some time.


Wilfrid Laurier: Hear. hear.


George Eulas Foster: Is that all the money you want now?


Wilfrid Laurier: Well, we have not had a bad day. The Supply Bill is not quite ready, but it will be ready after eight o'clock to take the first reading and I would therefore, if my hon. friend has no objection, ask you, Mr. Speaker, to call it six o'clock.
At six o'clock, House took recess.
After Recess.
House resumed at eight o'clock.



SUPPLY.

[Stage Direction]
House in Committee of Supply.
Printing and distribution of reports and bulletins of farms, $7,000.
['I think we shall Resume that on Thursday when the Minister of Justice (Mr. Fitzpatrick) is here.']
Sydney Arthur Fisher: This is the usual item. I overlooked it when I was passing the items for the experimental farm ; it has been for a number of years a separate item.


Mr. COCHRANE.: Could not some means be devised for expediting the distribution of these reports ? The report of last year is only being distributed now when it has lost a good deal of its interest to the farming community. It the reports were reduced in volume, the facts put in concise language and the reports gotten out sooner they would be more valuable.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: but it is distributed from the central farm as rapidly as we get it from the printer. I sometimes struggle to somewhat condense the report, but there is always so much information that seems to be of value that the director is very loth to cut it out and I sympathize with him generally. I doubt very much if the reduction of the report by a few hundred pages would make much difference in the promptness of its delivery.


Edward Cochrane: The facts might be couched in a great deal less verbiage. The officials appear to think they are not doing anything unless they produce a big volume, and it is pretty hard for a man coming off the farm to get at the facts.


Mr. A. A. WRIGHT.: Would it not be possible to have a complete set of these bulletins bound and given to every member of the House. Although it may be true that some of the lawyers would not care for them, still they contain a gre^t deal of valuable information and the * agriculturists would like to have them.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: As the information is collated the bulletins are printed and issued. We do not keep a number of copies for the purpose of rebinding them afterwards ; the people who get them might be expected to put them together and take care of them.


Richard Blain: It seems to me that a footnote should be printed on all of these bulletins informing the farmers that all correspondence which they may send to the Department of Agriculture will be carried through the mails free of postage. A very large number of the letters that come to the members of parliament are 'stamped, and I am ciuite sure that a considerable number of letters addressed to the government also bear stamps.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: It is very seldom that we get letters with stamps on them.


Richard Blain: I am very much surprised at that, because it is not generally known to the farmers that correspondence addressed to the department comes free. I have addressed farmer's audiences on this point and it is often a surprise to them to learn it. It would be very simple to print a foot note stating that letters addressed to the department will go free of postage.
Mr. FIonER. It is a very simple matter.


Richard Blain: If that were done I think it would encourage a more extensive correspondence with the department, although the minister may think that the correspondence is sufficient now.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Oh, not at all.


Richard Blain: I am one of those who believe that expenditure for bulletins of this kind is wise, and if necessary I would vote for a larger sum. so that the farmers in Mr. FISHER.
different parts of the country might be supplied with these bulletins which really contain very useful information.


Mr. BARKER.: I wish to confirm from my observation what the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Blain) has said. It is not only in the counties, but in the towns and cities, that the impression prevails that while a member can send a letter free, his correspondent cannot send a letter free to him. It is generally understood that we at Ottawa can use the post office free, but the great mass of the people, whether in the cities or the counties, do not know that they can send a letter through the post office without postage to a member or to the departments.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I only know that in the department we do not get one letter in a thousand with a stamp on it.


Samuel Barker: I venture to say that I do not get one letter in ten that has not a stamp on it.


Mr. HENDERSON.: My experience has been something like that of other hon. members. It is not only the farmers who get astray on this question. On Saturday evening I had occasion to ride through the-very rich and intelligent county of North Oxford on a very important mission, and in conversation with a gentleman who had' been a parliamentary candidate in North Oxford at one time, I told him that he could send correspondence free to any member of the House of Commons, when he begged to correct me, and said it was only members who could send correspondence to their constituents. I told him that he was mistaken, that he could send anything up to 5 lbs. in1 weight.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: That gentleman was defeated ?


David Henderson: He was defeated, and no wonder ; but the next man who is running there is not going to be defeated ; tiiey are going to change the programme.
I am surprised that there is not more correct knowledge on this subject. The department has done a great deal, but postmasters ought to be instructed to direct the people when they are posting letters to members that it is not necessary for them to put stamps on them. If the department would instruct the postmasters throughout the country to that effect, that would convey the information to the people better than it could be done in any other way.


John Barr: With regard to the distribution of these bulletins, I regret to say that they are not the benefit to the country that they ought to be. The fact is that they are lying around the corridors of this House to-day, as they have done in former years.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Allow me to correct my hon. friend. These bulletins are sent direct

from the farm, and do not lie around this House at all.


John Barr: I refer to the reports which we have now.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: They are also sent direct from the farm to the extent of tS0,000 or
70,000	besides a few which are sent to members.


John Barr: They are sent to whom ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: To people who have applied for them and to persons whose names have been given to us. My hon. friend has in his mind. I think, the reports of the evidence taken before the Committee on Agriculture, which the House manages, and which the department has nothing whatever to do with.


John Barr: My hon. friend is right so. far as that is concerned. I was coming to that point. I wish to bring before the House a grievance which I brought to some extent a few days ago. It might be as well to bring it to the attention of the Minister of Agriculture, as we have not at the present time a Postmaster General-at least, he is on the stump, and will not return for a week or two. It has been the custom of members of this House, and I think a very wise one, to send copies of the evidence taken before the Committee on Agriculture, it. parcels to rural postmasters, with the understanding that they would place them on their counters, so that the farmers, when coming to the store to purchase, might carry them away if they so desired. My experience has been that the farmers appreciated these reports very much. But to my surprise I find that the following letter has been sent to one of the postmasters in my riding :
The department is informed that under date of the 20th April last a package of government publications addressed to you was posted from the House of Commons, the contents of which were apparently intended for distribution by you at your office, contrary to the instructions contained in departmental circular of the 15th day of April last.
I telephoned to the deputy postmaster general asking him what the contents of that circular were, but I was informed that it was a departmental regulation and therefore could not lie divulged. I thought, owing to the lateness of the session, that I could not ask for a copy of that circular to be brought down. As it has been sent to the rural postmasters who have been accustomed to distribute these reports, they are afraid to place this information on their counters for fear that their heads will be taken off. The course we have been pursuing is one calculated to distribute a great deal of useful knowledge. I have been accustomed to follow that course, both in this House and in the Ontario House, and this is the first time' in my political history that
I have heard any objection to it. On the contrary, I think it should be encouraged. How otherwise is that evidence to be distributed ? I have endeavoured to distribute all the matter that has come to me, but I cannot find time to send it out in different envelopes. The next paragraph of this circular goes on to say :
Be so good as to let me know precisely what this package contains, and what disposition was made of the contents by you.
I ask by what right any inspector of the Post Office Department inquires what are the contents of a package which has my frank on it ? To my mind it is a gross infringement on the rights and privileges of members of this House. The very fact of the department sending out that circular lias the effect of frightening the postmasters and preventing them giving information which they would otherwise give. As neither the Postmaster General nor the First Minister is present, I think the Minister of Agriculture should look into that circular and should inform the House What it contains. It is the right of members to know what is in a circular relating to the parcels which they send through the mails from this House.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: My hon. friend will see that this is a matter that does not affect the item before the House at all.


John Barr: It certainly does.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Was the package to which ray hon. friend refers a package of bulletins from the farm ?


John Barr: One of them was.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I shall be glad to look into that matter.	.


Mr. URIAH WILSON.: I do not think it matters much whether they were bulletins issued by the department or evidence taken before the committee. It is very strange that while we have a Department of Agriculture and an Agricultural Committee of this House, the reports are issued and they lie around this House ; or they may not be printed for about a year, and the result is that when they are printed they are of very little use, because they have become stale. There is another reason why they cannot be sent out separately, and that is because the regulations provide for giving the members only 5,000 envelopes of a size sufficient to hold these reports. Now what are we going to do ? Are we going to buy envelopes to send these out separately ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I do.


Uriah Wilson: The Minister of Agriculture is a man of wealth, I understand.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I use a portion of my sessional allowance for that sort of work.


Uriah Wilson: 
Sydney Arthur Fisher: Has he ?


Uriah Wilson: Now I am strongly of the opinion that we ought to be allowed to send these things out in parcels. I was not aware that a circular had been issued by the department prohibiting that. I do not see why postmasters in any part of this country should not be instructed to distribute these, because they are parliamentary papers. I think we ought to have that circular at once laid upon the table of the House so that we may see what it contains.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I will see the Prime Minister about it.


John Barr: I think that in other respects there could be a great improvement in the distributions. We have in the room upstairs, I suppose, about twenty men called typewriters, and I think only one of them is a shorthand writer.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Would the bon. gentleman pardon me for interrupting him ? Really this discussion about the distribution of literature from the House of Commons has nothing whatever to do with this vote. I have no objection at all to this discussion at the proper time, but this is not the proper time ; this vote is purely for the cost of printing and distribution, it has nothing to do with members distributing their literature from the House.


John Barr: I entirely dissent from my hon. friend. We are now trying to get information to the farmers. As I said, we have about twenty of these men upstairs, whereas in Toronto last session, and even under the Reform government, there were less than twenty, and all were shorthand writers ; and the result was that members of the house had some one to help them distribute their literature, and do all their correspondence. The number of members in the Toronto legislature is less than half the number of members in this House, and yet they had nearly twenty shorthand writers at their disposal. It is utterly impossible for the members of this House to do all this work and do justice to their correspondence. I would like to ask the First Minister if he has obtained any information concerning that regulation of the loth of April.


Wilfrid Laurier: I have received the information from the Postmaster General. I am sorry I have not got it with me, I will give it to my hon. friend to-morrow.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: For the development of the live stock, dairying and fruit industries, the improvement of seeds, and the promotion of the sale of fool and other agricultural products ; employees paid from this sum not to be subject to the Civil Service Act, $220,000.
iMr. FISHER. I may say that this is a regular vote taken every year for the Agriculture Department. It has heretofore been administered under the supervision of the Commissioner of Agriculture and Dairying, Prof. Robertson. Perhaps I ought at once to explain that during this fiscal year Prof. Robertson has banded in his resignation and has severed his connection with the department. I need hardy dwell upon the regret which I personally feel at the loss of so eminent, and successful, ami painstaking a public servant. My only relief at his loss Is the knowledge that although he has left the service of the government. Professor Robertson still serves the agricultural interests of Canada, having taken a position in the control and management of a great agricultural station or college which is to be established on the island of Montreal through the beneficence of Sir William McDonald. I bad a conversation wltb Professor Robertson not long before this step was taken, and bad the advantage of discussing with him the future arrangements for carrying on this work. I think it is not necessary to appoint anybody to take his place. Under Professor Robertson the work for which this money has been voted was divided into three divisions, each one having an efficient officer at its head. I think that each of these officers is well qualified to take charge of the divisions with which they were specially charged, when they reported directly to the deputy minister and through him to me. I have now organized this work on that basis, and it is moving very satisfactorily. I think that no harm to the public service will come from it. While I regret extremely the loss of Professor Robertson's services to the country and to myself, I feel satisfied that the departmental work will go on very satisfactorily under the charge of Mr. Ruddick, Commissioner of Dairying, Mr. Hodgson, Commissioner of Live Stock, and Mr. Clark, Commissioner for seeds and seed growing, each of these being directly responsible through the deputy minister to myself, in the same way that Professor Robertson was before. The vote is still the same vote, but it is being divided amongst these three divisions.


Uriah Wilson: Why do you not
take three votes and give us the sum for each ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I do not think there is any necessity for dividing the vote. I was going to give a short outline of the way this money will be spent. The dairy commissioner has about $130,000, the commissioner for seeds about $35,000 and the live stock commissioner about $50,000. This leaves about $5,000

not devoted to any one of these great divisions, but retained for any agricultural work that may arise during the year for which no other provision may have been made. I would instance some investigations in regard to the growth of tobacco which have been carried on in recent years under Professor Robertson, but not under any one of these officers n*io had charge of a division under Professor Robertson. With regard to these three great divisions, 1 may explain that the dairy commissioner has charge, not only of the dairy work-the cool curing rooms for flheese which we have been running for two or three years, the creameries in the Northwest which we have been running for many' years, and the cold storage work of the country generally-but also what is called the extension of markets for Canadian food products. This latter includes the inspection and management in regard to the shipping of our different products, the question of prices, and also the work of our officials in England, who watch the arrival of our food products in. that great market. The administration of the Fruit Inspection Act and the Fruit Marks Act also come under this division, which has to do with what we call the commercial work -the management of the transportation and handling of our food products which this great branch, under Professor Robertson, has always dealt with. The live stock commissioner's branch carries on the work we do on behalf of the live stock interests of Canada, the keeping of the records which I explained to the House a little while ago, the sales of live stock throughout the country ; the work we do in connection with farmers' institutes ; the work we do in connection with the exhibitions, trying to bring them to uniform lines and helping them by supplying judges ; and also the work we do in connection with the interprovincial trade in live stock which has arisen of late years, and which has called for a good deal of supervision and assistance in the way of spreading information among the people as to the supplies of live stock that may be had from different parts of the country. The seed division will cover two main items. The first is the work we are doing to promote the use of (better and cleaner seed. And now that the Seed Control Act has passed this House, and, I hope, will pass the Senate soon and will become law, the second item will be the administration of that Act. In connection with this branch we are encouraging and helping the formation of seed-growers' associations all over the country, by means of which we hope to get men interested in growing better seed for use on our farms. I regret to say that many of our farmers are careless with regard" to the quality of seed they use. There is immense room for improvement, not only in the varieties of seed which ought to be used, but also in the use of good, well-matured seed, which will be sure to germinate and seed which is clean and free from weeds. When I say that our farmers have been careless in this respect, of course, a large number .of our best farmers are very particular on this point, and have been doing good work both in the seed they have produced and in the choice of seed for use on their farms. Still, there is an immense number of our farmers who do not seem to understand the importance of watching closely the quality of the seed they use. The consequence has been, in many instances, that the crops have deteriorated, not only in quality, but in quantity.
This, in general outline, is the work covered by these divisions. I have a staff of, I believe, efficient and, 1 know, enthusiastic and energetic officers to deal with these matters, and I have proof from all parts of the country of the good work that is being done. I believe that the money spent in years past has been productive of great good, and I trust that in future increasing advantage will accrue to (the Dominion through this branch of the public service.


Uriah Wilson: It seems to me objectionable that the minister should have so large a vote to devote to any purpose he chooses within these very wide lines. The vote should be divided-so much for dairies, so much for live stock, so much for seed and so much for markets. When the Auditor General comes to look over this expenditure he will find no means of checking it, so long as it has been spent for any one of the things here mentioned. The minister may stand by what he says to-night or he may change-there is nothing to prevent him. If he knows what we want for each of these branches, I do not see why this vote should not be divided. If that is done, the minister can be held to account by the Auditor General. Perhaps that is the very thing the hon. gentleman does not want. I find that the vote for immigration is included in about three items, covering about $700,000 or $800,000. I think it is about time we had these estimates divided more carefully, so that we may know what we are voting, and so that the" ministers may be held strictly to account for the expenditure of these large sums.
(Mr. FISHER. We have not found any difficulty with regard to that in the past. I have always been ready to give full information on the subject. Occasionally, of course, one particular line of work costs a little more than is expected, but, under such a vote as this, it can be done, and so the public work can go on effectively.
.Mr. URIAH WTUSON, What objection has the minister to dividing this up in the manner I suggest ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I may tell the hon. member frankly that my chief objection is that if you meet an unforeseen difficulty, involving

a change in the estimates, it generally requires more discussion and explanation in the House. This vote is not changed from what it has been. Tile only difference is that the head has been removed and the whole has been brought under the deputy minister. Formerly it was under the control of Professor Robertson. That is the only change. Otherwise, when this was voted for Professor Robertson's branch last year it was voted just in the same way as I am asking to have it voted now.	'


Edward Cochrane: When Mr. Robertson was head he had control of the three departments for which the minister is now to have three gentlemen.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: As a matter of fact Professor Robertson had five or six departments un'der him and they were just as separate as they are to-day.


Edward Cochrane: I beg pardon, Mr. Minister. Professor Robertson had control of the three departments you have taken here, and he was responsible to the deputy minister for the conduct of these three departments.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: No, excuse me, Professor Robertson was independent of the deputy minister.
is a good deal of fraud in connection with ; this matter, and when the minister tells this House and the country that the farmers do not know enough to select the seed to sow on their farms I want to tell him he was brought up in a section of country that is not very intelligent, and he must not speak from that section of the country for the farmers of Ontario. The farmers of Ontario know how to select their seed as well as any official he has in his department and it would not take them half so long to put it in concise language so that a man of ordinary intelligence would know what it meant.


Uriah Wilson: I do not think the minister has given a very good reason why this vote is a lump sum. The fact that it has been done before to my mind is no reason why it should be continued unless it is the best way. If the minister has an outline in his mind of what he wants for each of these departments, each of these items, I think that is the way to put it in the estimates, and then he would not spend any more than the amount specified on any particular service without coming back to the House for another vote. I think it would be better if the minister cannot do it this year to consider it another year.


Edward Cochrane: He was responsible to you.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Yes, he was responsible to me. Now the deputy minister is responsible.


Edward Cochrane: If you want to do all the talking let us know it. The minister is a good deal like his officials ; unless he has a great amount of verbiage to give us a little information, he does not think he is doing anything.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I will not do it any more.


Edward Cochrane: We want you to do more, but it is better for the minister to answer the question and sit down and not do all the talking before the committee. I was right, Professor Robertson was responsible to you if not to the deputy and there "'as one man who controlled this money and now you have three controlling it responsible to the deputy and the deputy is responsible to you, so we do not know where it is going and you may spend money on departments, for which we do not vote it at all. We leave it just to your sweet will to spend this money where you see fit. We hear a good deal about the efficient work of these gentlemen but when I wanted to get from the minister himself in the committee the name of one of these gentlemen in order to get some seed, I could not get the information, but I found out from a circular sent to me that there is one man in East Northumberland whom I know very well who would not be able to supply half a dozen farmers Vi ith ten bushels apiece. I do not suppose he had any grain of the kind. I think there Mr. FISHER.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: It is well worth considering.


George Eulas Foster: I think what the hon. member (Mr. Uriah Wilson) has said is very true. The same argument that the minister uses might very well be used for simply saying we should vote to the Minister of Agriculture for such purposes as he has mentioned the sum of 1525,600 in the belief that he will use it properly, in the proper proportion for each item. An estimate is for two things. It Is in the first place to define to parliament what you want a certain amount of money for, and in the second place it is to give the auditing officer a chance to check according to the law and to see that no amount shall be expended except for the specific purpose for which it is voted. You put $220,000 in a lump sum and say : This is for the development of live stock, dairying, the fruit industry, improving the state of trade and agricultural products. You lump them together and it is absolutely at the will of the minister first and of Council afterwards. You could use that sum as you choose. The essence of every proper estimate is definiteness. You ought to know about what you are likely to spend on live stock, dairying and each of these other branches. There are at least five or six different specific objects there, and each vote should be divided so that it would be definite and clear ; as it is it is a lump sum. Something of this kind to a certain extent may have always been done, but 1 know when I had to do with estimates my purpose was to get them definitely stated. We happened this year to be ques-
JTTT^e 5. 1905
tioning the Minister of Militia with reference to a lump vote. It appeared innocuous and it seemed to show that it was for a certain purpose that when we came to question him we found that he was undertaking three or four different works with it, in different parts of the country and in different provinces, and unless the question had happened to come up at that time, the city of Fredericton for instance would never have known that in that vote was included a sum to he spent for certain military works there. In proportion as you gather these different items and put them in a general vote, you do away with the definiteness of your estimates and you do away with the guard that the Auditor General has over them. The minister does more than that, he lays up trouble for himself. Influential supporters may come to him and say : Here is a project that we want you to carry out in the line of one of these things. You say :	I
was not proposing to spend this much." But they will reply : But your vote does not tie you, it allows you to do as you please ; what we want you to do is to spend a lot of this money say for this fruit enterprise. The minister lays himself open, at least he takes away from himself this guard that he has definitely told parliament what he would use this money for, and he must keep his pledge to parliament. I call the attention of the minister to that and I would particularly call the attention of the Minister of Finance to it if he were here. I agree with what my hon. friend (Mr. Wilson) has said and I think we must certainly insist on having these estimates divided. I am not going to insist as my hon. friend (Mr. Wilson) did not insist that it should be done for this year, but after this I am going to make a plea with the Finance Minister who supervises these estimates that he shall ask each minister to definitely show each vote. Of course you cannot go into every detail ; you must have some omnibus votes but, omnibus votes should be few and small.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: The general principle which my hon. friend has enunciated is undoubtedly correct. This vote is a large one to-day. It has been growing steadily from the needs of the country. I can remember this vote long before I came into office as a vote for some of the purposes which are included in it now. These are all cognate objects. They are not different. They are very largely interlaced ; that is to say some of the men in connection with this vote attend to part of the work and attend also to other parts of the work, and it is a difficult thing to exactly divide the proportions of their time which may be applied to one piece of the work or applied to another piece of the work. I am trying to do that to a certain extent. I find that where it is possible to avoid that it is better because an officer who is shifted about from one work to another, I find, is
not very likely to be effective. I therefore have been trying to get the staff divided, and when the time comes that I can divide this work I think it will be well to do as my hon. friend has suggested, but at the present time I would like to ascertain by experience how much each of these piece's of work will require.


Uriah Wilson: You will have this year to try it in.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Yes, but it is only three months since Professor Robertson resigned and I have only begun the reorganization,


Uriah Wilson: You will have a year from the 1st of July.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: 1 will have a year after July in which to test the success of it after I have reorganized it if I get this little vote. I know my hon. friend is quite willing to have this little vote go through this year and I appreciate that courtesy on his part. I will say quite frankly to my hon. frieud that when I ask for that item for the succeeding year I will have such information as will enable me to divide it in a way that will meet the wishes of the House. I do not take exception to the criticism that is made. I think that in regard to a vote of these proportions the criticism is to some extent justified. When this vote was originally taken it was a comparatively small affair, but it has increased from year to year and I think that when it has reached its present proportion what my hon. friend from North Toronto Mr. Foster) says has a good deal of justification. When it was a very much smaller vote it was not so necessary to discuss the features of it. But, I will carefully look into the question and see if, in another year, I cannot meet my hon. friend's desires so that the House can thoroughly understand what the money is intended for. I need not say that I have no intention of hiding from the House what the money is intended for.
To promote dairying interests for advance of milk and cream, to be recouped out of the process of sales of such butter and cheese, to be placed to the credit of the consolidated revenue fund, $40,000.


George Eulas Foster: What was done with that vote last year and what was recouped?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: We run certain creameries in the Northwest Territories and in making sales of the produce of these creameries we advance a portion of the money at once to the patrons; then, when we come to complete the sales aud get tbe money from the purchasers, we reimburse the treasury and the result is that at the end of the year this money is all back. But, in the meantime we have to have it in the bank to draw upon. A portion of it, I do not know how much, is drawn upon. Some

years only a little is drawn sometimes it runs -pretty close to the amount.


Uriah Wilson: You are out the interest. I suppose ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: We do not charge interest. My officials tell me that it would hardly be safe to undertake the work unless we had available this $40,000. Last year we had something over $100,000 worth of butter. We had to sell that and to handle it and for that purpose my officers think that about $40,000 is needed.


Uriah Wilson: Was there any loss in the transaction to the government last year?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: There was no loss except the interest. There was never any loss. The money advanced comes back and more too. We only advance a proportion of the price. We advance 10 cents a pound and the price of butter is 20 cents a pound and over.


George Eulas Foster: What was the nature of the transaction last year and what is the policy? Are you continuing to do the same thing year after year in the same locality, or are you trying to put an industry on its legs, and then go to another locality and try to do the same thing ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I do not think my hon, friend understands the situation. A good many years ago-I think the very first year after I came into office-representations were made to me that certain creameries had been started in the Northwest Territories chiefly in the Alberta district as private creameries and had failed and that the plant and buildings were there lying useless. I was asked to see if I could not do something to restart the industry there.
I had Professor Robertson look into the matter very closely and we came to the conclusion that there was an opportunity for the establishment of a successful creamery industry in the Northwest Territories. To do that we undertook to advance some money to some of the creameries so as to put them on their feet and to manage and run them. It is in the management and running of them that this money is required. It is only those creameries in the Northwest Territories that are built; we have not for a number of years back started many new ones. I think there was one new one started last year, but most of the older ones have paid up their advances and are paying their way. We are still managing them. I have been informing the people that they must look forward in the near future to our handing over the management to the patrons. We have been begged from year to year not to do it and it has been represented that the management by government officials has been on the whole satisfactory and more successful, especially in the maraeting of their products than Mr. FISHER.
private management. Up to the present time I have not discontinued this system, but I did instruct my officers who went there last winter to say that as a considerable number of the people there were now paying their way and doing well enough to assume the management themselves, I must Insist on their taking over the management and so reducing the resposibility of the government.


George Eulas Foster: I must say that the sting is in the tail and that the last sentence or two of the hon. minister came down to really what I did want to know. With all due deference to the hon. minister I did know exactly how this was being carried on. Is the government going into this in perpetuity ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: No.


George Eulas Foster: Are you always going to take charge of these creameries and run them, or are you just taking hold of them and putting them on a basis where they will be established and self-sustaining, and then say to the people: Here, we have shown you how to do it, we have brought you through a certain amount of instructive practice and now you must take this over yourselves ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: That is the intention.


George Eulas Foster: The government surely does not intend to be running these factories in this way ? How many of these are you running in the Northwest ?
Mr. FISHER, Sixteen, I think.


George Eulas Foster: After you run these for two or three years you must have half of them or more on a fairly good basis, and the people then will know their benefits-. If you are going to go into a certain amount of that business for educative purposes, I presume you will try and get say eight of them on to a self-management basis, and then you could take up another eight districts if you wish. It is the people's work and not the work of government, and -there can be no excuse for the government doing it except that by its-' educative influence it may point out the right way of making and marketing the article.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I quite agree with my hon. friend (Mr. Foster). He has outlined the policy I wish to pursue, but every time I try to drop a creamery the people protest and beg us to continue, and so long as we are doing some of them it is not very much extra expense to do the whole of them. With the influx of settlers there will be other parts of the Northwest Territories which will want to start these creameries soon, but where wheat growing is successful, they do not care to go into dairying.


Mr. DANIEL.: I understand the minister to state that for this $40,000 of advances

the country was recouped by the sale of the butter, and that that money was paid to the credit of the consolidated fund.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Oh, no. The patrons send their cream to the factory and the butter is sent to a central warehouse at Calgary and disposed of on the open market. The accounts are made up for each individual patron of the factory and when the monthly statements are prepared, frequently the butter is not sold or perhaps only part of it is sold. In the meantime we pay to every patron what is .equal to 10 cents on every pound of butter which his milk has produced. Then when the sales are consummated and the money received for the butter, we pay him the balance according to the price received. None of it is paid to the consolidated fund ; it is a separate fund for each creamery and nothing comes back to the country except perhaps a charge for making.


John Waterhouse Daniel: The item says 1 the proceeds of sales of such butter and cheese to be placed to the credit of the consolidated fund.'


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Quite so, but it is not put into the ordinary revenue of the country. It is' a special account for each cream. ery.


John Waterhouse Daniel: Then the country gets no money return whatever for the expenditure of this $40,000 ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: The $40,0o0 is not spent. At the end of the fiscal year the $40,000 is intact ; we simply pay 10 cents on account, for every pound of butter and we pay it out of this vote.
Mr. FOSTER, What profit do you make ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: We do not make a profit. When the price of the butter is received by our officer he retains' 10 cents for every pound and pays it back to this vote.


John Waterhouse Daniel: In what account will the payment back to the country be found ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: The payments out of this vote and the re-imbursements are all submitted to the Auditor General by a special accountant in my department who has charge of this work ; it includes an immense amount of detail as an account for each patron is. kept.


John Waterhouse Daniel: The item states, that this money is placed to the credit of the consolidated revenue fund. Where can I find in the Consolidated Revenue Fund account a statement of the recouping of this money, or any portion of it?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I am afraid I cannot tell the hon. gentleman exactly.


John Waterhouse Daniel: I have the Consolidated Revenue account here, and the only item I can see which would refer even in a distant
way to this item is : ' Department of Agriculture ; special account, $4,855.'


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I know in general terms hew it is done, but I am afraid I cannot say as to how it appears in the Public Accounts. Perhaps I have not made myself clear to my hon. friend, who probably is not familiar with the way in which these cooperative factories are worked. Each patron sends his milk or cream to the factory and gets credit for so much butter fat ; and when the total amount of the butter fat is made up into butter and the butter is sold, the money received for it is distributed to the patrons in proportion to what they have sent to the factory. Before that final distribution occurs, however, my officer pays tto each patron 10 cents per pound on account out of this fund. When the final sale of the butter takes place and the money is received by my officer, he pays back into this fund the 10 cents which he had advanced out of it to each patron, and then pays the balance to the pahrons in addition.


John Waterhouse Daniel: What we still do not understand is where the country gets recouped.
I understood the minister to state that the $40,000 was merely handled, and the country got it all back. If that is the case, there ought to be some entry of that repayment in the public accounts ; but I can find no such entry.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I cannot explain that, but I think it is due to the fact that at the beginning of the year a credit is given by the Auditor General to the Department of Agriculture ; my officers from time to time use what they want of it, and replace it before the end of the year. Consequently, it would not appear as impaired in any way ; and, in consequence of that, I suppose it does not appear in the public accounts at all.


Uriah Wilson: I think this is a fair item to stand until the minister can give us that information. Is there an officer in every factory ; and if so, is he paid by the patrons ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: We pay the officers and we charge the patrons so much for making the butter.


George Eulas Foster: How much money was actually paid out last year to these patrons at the rate of 10 cents a pound ?
Mr. FISHER, I have not that information at my hand. I can find out immediately the number of pounds of butter that was made, which would show how much was paid out. Of course, my hon. friend will understand that this $40,000 might be used three or four times over during the season as needed. We pay out the 10 cents when the butter is made in the creamery. We might sell that butter in a week and get the money ail back, or we might not sell it for two or three months, and consequently

be unable to reimburse the fund for that length of time. It is practically a deposit to be used as working capital, and to be recouped when the money comes in.
iM$r. FOSTER. The miiniisiter has not answered clearly the question of the hou. member for St. John. What he wants to know is where that money comes back to the treasury. We can easily understand how it goes out ; but my hon. friend from St. John says that within the covers of the book he cannot find more than $4,000 that has come back. That question has not been answered by the minister. I think we shall have to have this item stand until that can be made clear, and also because two or three of our members who are not here want to say something about these features.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I have no objection to let it stand.


Uriah Wilson: The minister might tell us how much a pound he gets for making the butter, and whether the account comes out even or shows any profit ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: We get 4 cents a pound. In the large creameries that more than covers the cost, while in the small creameries it does not cover the cost.


Uriah Wilson: How do you even up the accounts ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Where there is any money over we give it to the creamery where it is made ; and where there is a deficit we pay that ourselves. We do not charge the good creameries with the losses of the poor ones.
Item allowed to stand.
Salaries and contingent expenses of the Senate, $76,576.


Wilfrid Laurier: This is the usual vote for the Senate. It shows an increase of $1,000, of which I am sorry to say I cannot give any explanation. They want that much more to carry on their business.


George Eulas Foster: I am quite sure the House of Commons would never abnegate its right to have an explanation of this increase. We cannot vote money here without knowing what it is for.


Wilfrid Laurier: I have given the information to my hon. friend. The gentlemen of the higher court of parliament say they desire it and must have it. and cannot carry ou their work without it. It is a growing time and a growing country, and the only explanation furnished to me is that these estimates are prepared by a committee of contingencies of the Senate.


George Eulas Foster: 
Sydney Arthur Fisher: 


Wilfrid Laurier: My memory is not equal to that.


George Eulas Foster: Has my hon. friend abandoned entirely the view, so strongly held by himself and many of his supporters, that the Senate ought to be reformed, reformed out of existence ?


Wilfrid Laurier: That was not my view, my hon. friend knows me too well. That was the view of some of my friends, but not my own.


George Eulas Foster: I know my right hon. friend made a great deal of capital in the country on that ground.


Wilfrid Laurier: Reforming the Senate out of existence?


George Eulas Foster: Reforming it even out of existence; and especially one thing was going to be done, there was going to be no old


An hon. MEMBER.: Women ?


George Eulas Foster: Women, yes, or defeated candidates, men of an age so advanced that it is difficult for them to get around. Will the right hon. gentleman now tell us exactly tlie age of the last gift made by himself to the Senate ?


Wilfrid Laurier: Well, I do not know exactly, but I think he has cut his wisdom teeth.
Library of Parliament-salaries. $23,575.


Wilfrid Laurier: There is an increase in salaries of $475, made up altogether of statutory increases.
Books for the general library, including binding, &c., $13,000.


Mr. BERGERON.: Has the government considered the need of enlarging the library building?


Wilfrid Laurier: Yes, the attention of the government has been brought to the necessity of providing additional space for the increasing number of volumes. A plan has been suggested to the government, but we have come to no conclusion. If my hon. friend has views upon the subject, I would be glad to hear them, because the government will approach the subject with an absolutely open mind.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: The subject has been brought to my notice by reason of my membership of a committee of the House of Commons. I have been told that another plan has been prepared, but the session is so far advanced that unless the government has finally come to a conclusion, it will be a long time before anything is done. More space is needed. I understand that nearly half the books of the library are hidden, or are in some place where they cannot be seen.


George Eulas Foster: Who has the selection of the new books for the library?


Wilfrid Laurier: As my hon. friend knows, the Library Committee gives sometimes directions to the librarians, but when no directions are given to the librarians they use their own judgment. But so far as I know, the committee have no control over the librarians regarding the purchase of books, these gentlemen are absolutely their own masters. The committee has never suggested to the librarians how they should employ the money. I think my hon. friend is a member of the Library Committee


George Eulas Foster: I am a member. It meets once, and nothing is done; that is a preliminary meeting to make arrangements for a second meeting. It meets the second time, and a report is read, and then we adjourn. We may have another meeting before the session closes. Sometimes I think there is a lack in the library of up-to-date books. I do not know whether other members have noticed it or not in their requirements for reading, but I have wondered whether the committee had advisory duties in connection with the purchase of new books.


Wilfrid Laurier: I am sure that depends altogether on the librarians. There was a time when I was a more faithful attendant of that committee than I have been of late years, and my experience was something like that of my hon. friend, that a meeting was more of a social gathering than anything else. Sometimes we had a general conversation, and a suggestion was made that we should get such and such a book; but nothing was ever done, nothing is done now, the librarians absolutely use their own judgment in the purchase of the books. .


George Eulas Foster: There is another thing, and that is the failure on the part of many who take out books to return them. I do not know how it can be overcome, unless it be done by the passage of resolutions requiring parties to return books taken from the parliamentary library. The librarians are really the servants of parliament, parliament is composed of members, and if there is any collision between the parliamentary librarian and a member, the librarian generally gets the worst of it. At least all he can do is courteously to ask for the books to be returned, but if the member simply does not answer that request. the books are not returned. I think the Prime Minister himself would be surprised if he knew just how many books are absent from the library because, under circumstances that we usually forget, they are not returned. But that is not the purpose for which the library was instituted, it was to keep books in the library itself, in order to afford the advantages both of
quick reading and of circulation. I was wondering whether anything could be done to facilitate the gathering in of books that go out to the different departments.


Wilfrid Laurier: I have not ' heard of any complaint of late. I remember some fifteen years ago when the Library Committee had rather a warm discussion over this subject, but at that time no means could be devised by which a check could be put upon this evil practice. We have to trust to the honour of those who took the books away from the library to bring them back again. Many of those books are never returned simply because of carelessness on the part of those who take them out. It was suggested that it would be a good thing to pass a rule that books should not go out-I would not say out of the library, because that would not be possible. but that books should not go out of this building. That. I think, is the only rule that would be satisfactory-that the books in this library like those in any other library of a similar nature should not be taken out of the building. But our library here is really a circulation library


George Eulas Foster: Very much so.


Wilfrid Laurier: Members have the privilege of taking books away, and they also have the privilege of taking them for their friends. This, it seems to me, ought not to be allowed. It is difficult, perhaps, to say that a member of parliament, at the end of the session, for instance, should not be allowed to take books with him. A good many members do that. And I believe that those who use the library most are those who return -books most surely and quickly. But there are members who take away books which happen to strike their fancy and, through sheer eai-elessness, do not return them. Then, members facilitate the taking out of books by then-friends, and this, I believe, is the cause of the disappearance of the larger number of books that are not returned. The redeeming feature of the case is that these books are generally of those that can best be spared from the library. There has hitherto been no great public library in Ottawa, and it has been difficult, when we had a large and valuable collection of books here, to keep that collection closed and not allow any of the books to(go out. But. unless we have a rigid rule to this effect. I am afraid the leakage cannot be stopped.


George Eulas Foster: The right hon. Prime Minister has spoken of this as a circulating library. Well, it has at least one of the elements for circulation. The arteries are there, but whether the veins are there, to complete the circulation by bringing back that which is sent out through the arteries, is a great question. Not only do members get these books, but this library is largely a convenience to the people of Ottawa.

Through the members, or in some way, books are circulated throughout the city. The Prime Minister says that one redeeming feature is that the books thus sent out and often lost are largely of the kind that can best be spared from a library of this kind. But that seems like saying that the people's money is voted each year for the purchase of books which are not useful in assisting members of parliament in their work and are not of the kind for which this library was instituted. X think it would be difficult to make a rule that books shall not be taken from the precincts of this House. One's time as a member is pretty well taken up during the working hours of the House, and unless one can take a book to his room and digest it there, he is denied opportunities which enable him better to carry on his work in this House. But two things might be insisted upon : That the privilege, very much abused by some of us, of handing out..books to all and sundry of our friends, might be curtailed or done away with. And, then, though it might seem a drastic remedy, I think the librarian might be backed up by a rule which would enable him to say to a member that books out must be returned within a reasonable time, otherwise he would not be allowed to take out more books. I am sure that if such a rule were applied in my case it would bring me to time-I would be pretty careful to send books back that I might not be on the prohibited list. But I think the time has come when we should stop this leak. It is impossible to get some books from the library that ought to be there. You ask for them, but they are out. Who has them ? Nobody knows ; they have been out, perhaps, for three or four years. It would surprise some members of the House to see the list of the books that are out, never to come back I suppose, for they have been out so long that they have lost all knowledge of the haunts from which they came. But I think that the suggestions I make if carried out, would result in good.


Wilfrid Laurier: The next time there is a meeting of the library committee, I will attend if the hon. gentleman (Mr. Foster) will be there, and I will support his suggestions.


George Eulas Foster: I will be there.


Mr. BUREAU.: I would suggest to the Library Committee an'idea for their consideration at their next meeting. Why not create a fund by asking every member who wishes to take out books put up a cash deposit ; then, if the book is not returned in the proper time, use the money to buy another copy. That is. the way they do in circulating libraries, and it seems to me that that is the proper way to do here.


George Eulas Foster: I would suggest, to the leader of the House that the next Act that is passed adding to the sessional indemnity Mr. FOSTER.
of members should carry a condition that a certain percentage of the increase shall be kept back for one or two years, to be used in supplying the deficiencies caused by books being borrowed and not returned.
Legislation-genera!-.printing, binding and distributing the laws, $7,000.


Mr. A. A. McLEAN.: When will the consolidation of the laws be completed ?


Wilfrid Laurier: It is expected that it will be completed this year, and that the Bill will be ready for the next session of xoarliament.
Legislation-general-printing, printing paper and binding, $125,000.


George Eulas Foster: What does that cover '!


Wilfrid Laurier: This covers the expenditures of the Printing Bureau on the items stated. There is nothing new in this-it is the usual vote.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: I take this opportunity to repeat what I said the other night. The Printing Bureau is a great institution with which, I am sure, many of the members are not familiar. The members of the Printing Committee had occasion to visit the Bureau recently and were astonished to see the work that was done there, especially in the binding of the reports submitted to parliament and the books for the library. The building is not nearly large enough for the work to be done. The King's Printer and his assistanfs all complain of that, and rightly. An addition has been made to the building and is now about ready for occupation, but it will do but little good, for much more room is needed. The government have a large property there, and the sooner they use it the better. There are a great many employees in the Printing Bureau, but, for lack of space they work at a great disadvantage. We are losing money because the place is so small that the employees cannot do their work as well as they would otherwise do if. The Minister of Public Works (Mr. Hyman) is not here, but, in his absence I' will call the attention of the Prime Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) to this case as one deserving his earnest attention.


Wilfrid Laurier: I am glad my hon. friend (Mr. Bergeron) has mentioned this matter, as it gives me an opportunity to give my hon. friend and to those who take an interest in the subject my own view. I know that the building of the Printing Bureau is altogether too small. The Secretary of State has complained to me more than once and has proposed that provision should be made for increased accommodation. I have stated more than once tc the Secretary of State-and I might just as well make a confession of it now-that the selection of a site for the Printing Bureau was very unfortunate. My opinion is that we should have the whole of that space

vacant, extending Major Hill Park to tlie bank of the river which would add much to the' beauty of Ottawa, but you have the Printing Bureau just where it is, interfering with such a park. It is an ugly building, it has no architectural beauty, and I think if we were to make an addition of one-third or one-half of this building we might very well select another site and leave this site vacant in order to have what we should have, a park which would cover the whole of Nepean Point. I do not know if parliament would entertain that view. The plan would not cost much, it would cost something of course, but it would add very much to the beauty of this city in which we take a good deal of pride, and I think this idea ought to meet with some favour on the part of my hon. friends. At all events this is^an idea which I have not dared to mention very often, but since the matter has come up, I would like gentlemen on the other side to think of the suggestion I have made that if we are to spend a good deal of money in enlarging the Printing Bureau, and we must do it, we might consider the advisability of putting it elsewhere and leaving the space which is now partly vacant absolutely vacant, covering the whole of Nepean Point with a continuation of Major Hill Park.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: The new Mint is being built close to that spot which shows that the idea has not been very much thought of.


Wilfrid Laurier: No, the Mint is near Sussex Street. I would have preferred to have it elsewhere, but where it is it will not interfere with the idea I h,ave in my mind of extending Major Hill Park along the river.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: Of course that is another question. Whether we are to enlarge the Printing Bureau or place it somewhere else is the Important thing. I believe it would be a saving of money and would improve the good work that is now done there, if the building was enlarged one way or, another.


Mr. ALEX. JOHNSTON.: I dissent entirely from the remarks of the hon. member for Beauharnois (Mr. Bergeron) with regard to our losing money in this connection. An examination would reveal to any pers'on interested the fact that notwithstanding that the printing of parliament is not entirely done at the Bureau here the country is not suffering as a result, and that being the case I think it will be1 found that the printing done outside the Bureau is done at rates that compare very favourably indeed with the rates paid at the Printing Bureau. I chanced to be present before the Public Accounts Committee when Dr. Dawson gave evidence. He pointed out and satisfied me that in some particular instances he was able to get work done outside
the Bux-eau at rates very much cheaper than he could get the work done at the Bureau. I think upon close examination very many items will be detected in which it will be found that the work can be done more cheaply in printing offices as in connection with' the preparation of the various reports. In some cases this could be done cheaper in Montreal. Toronto, or even some of the smaller cities. This1 is a matter which might very well engage the attention of the Printing Committee, and I desire once again to protest for the present at least, against any further enlargement of the Printing Bureau until it has been shown that the country is saving by it. If the matter is gone into carefully, I think it can. be demonstrated to the satisfaction of parliament that this work can be done by printing concerns throughout the country at rates from which the country not only will not lose, but I have no doubt will gain.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: I think I remember the occasion of which my hon. friend speaks. One of the reasons given by the King's Printer was that the building was too small and they could not have all the plant necessary to do all he would like to do. Secondly there was a question of printing the lists, and it was said-and there was a great deal of sense in it-that the printing of Lists for British Columbia or the Northwest Territories for instance, would toe done cheaper as a matter of fact in those provinces than having them printed here, and sent there. Another subject was the printing of maps.


Alexander Johnston: Lithographing.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: That kind of work can be done better and cheaper in Toronto or Montreal, because the Printing Bureau here is too small to contain the apparatus necessary. At the same time the King's Printer said he could do everything here, and if my hon. friend will go back a few years to the establishment of the Printing Bureau he will find a great many reasons given in favour of having all the printing of pax-lia-ment done here, not only for reasons of economy but for other reasons. My hon. friend. I am sure, must recognize that there must have been some good reasons given for the establishment of that office here ; indeed. I think it has given satisfaction and the only question I was bring-jug before tlie House was that as the business of the country is enlarging-as we are told and it is true-the printing is enlarging The printing of ' Hansard ' is a great work at the Bureau. The binding is a much gi-eater work at the Bui'eau than I supposed. We have some very good experts in their lines doing that work and when congratulating the King's Printer on such good work we were told that he was handicapped by the small space in which his men were working, and that is the reason why
.6951

I for the second time called the attention of the government to it. I do not think we could vote money for a better purpose. My hon. friend may have the Bureau somewhere else, that is another idela. If parliament decided to put the Bureau somewhere else, if we knew what to do with the old building which is a very costly one, I would have nothing to say, but whether we build-semewhere else or enlarge the present building it is high time to do something. One of the highest officials there suggested that the building could be heightened by a couple of stories which I understand would be tbe cheapest plan. The King's Printer's idea would be to enlarge the building, because there is a good deal of ground there, but of course that is not taking into consideration the plan of my hon. friend. If the building is put somewhere else, all of the demands would probably be met in the new' building.


David Henderson: To my mind the question of public printing being done outside of Ottawa was settled years ago when the present Bureau was established. I confess I have never heard any good reason given since that time .for returning to the old practice of having a portion of the work done in Toronto, Montreal or any other city of the Dominion. I think mvself it is* decidedly better to have the entire work done here under the strict supervision of the government.
Now as to the cost being less when done m some outside office, it is quite possible that the hon. member for Cape Breton (Mr. Johnston) may be correct. To my mind, it is absolutely impossible, with the present conveniences for doing the work, to get all the work out of the men that they can do. I had occasion a short time ago to visit the Printing Bureau along with other members ot the Printing Committee. We went through the building, I think through almost all the rooms. I was astonished to see the crowded condition, and because of tbe way that men were huddled together It was absolutely impossible to do work. They had not an opportunity of doing the full amount oi work that a man could do were he given space-not only space to work in, but spact to breathe in. Having spent an hour ami a half in that building. I was glad to gel outside. I fail to see how in the world these people live there. The health conditions are practically .abominable. How those women manage to sit there for eight or ten hours is something 1 could not comprehend, and certainly the sanitary arrangements are far from what they ought to be. We cannot expect to get people to do the amount ol work they should do with such surroundings. " e cannot expect them to perform the same amount of work if they really have not space to breathe in. it only requires a visit for a short time to see that the first requisites of health and of the opportunity Mr. BERGERON.
to do work are absolutely wanting in every department of that building. In regard to the suggestion of the right hon. leader of the government (Sir Wilfrid Laurier), certainly something will have to be done, no' matter whether the cost is great or small. The country is losing money and will lose money as long as the present conditions prevail, for the reasons which I have assigned. We want the Printing Bureau to be as near as (possible to the parliament buildings. Many of us have occasion to go there from time to time, and it would be very inconvenient if the Printing Bureau were removed half a mile or a mile from the public buildings here ; in fact, at the present time, even when tbe Printing Bureau is located as it is, I think that very much better conveniences ought to be and could be provided for giving members of parliament access' to the Printing Bureau for the purposes that they require to go there from time to time.
I think the time has come when a foot-way should be so constructed from parliament hill across to the park and to the Printing Bureau so as to give easy access without going around by way of Wellington street and Sussex street, or going through the park, to get there. I have occasion to go at different times when I find that time actually prevents me from doing so. I find it inconvenient, and if we could be assisted in any way by such means as I suggest I know it would inure to tbe benefit and convenience of every member of parliament. Were it not for that I would not object at all in tbe construction of a new building to have it removed to a greater distance, but I fear that by scattering these buildings too much we are going to inconvenience men who have all their time fully occupied in this House if they pretend for a moment to attend to their parliamentary duties. I sympathize with the government in any desire they have to increase the accommodation.
1 confess that at the present time I would favour an enlargement o.f the present building to the suggestion of removing it a considerable distance further away, but certainly it is a matter with which the government will have to deal, and that at a very early date, because the country Is increasing while the conveniences for doing that work are not increasing. I would dislike very much to see a friend of mine go into that Printing Bureau. I think it is destructive to health. I do not know what the exxieri-ence of those who are working there is. but I think ;I made a note of It that I saw depicted on the faces of people who are working there that they are not enjoying the health conditions they ought to enjoy, that they are not able to perform tbe duties which this government and this country would expect them to perform, and that under the present crowded conditions they are not doing what they could do if the conditions were more favourable.



Alexander Johnston: The words of my hon. friend (Mr. Henderson) convince me more strongly than ever that the Printing Bureau has undertaken a little more work than it ought to undertake, more particularly under the conditions which he depicts. In spite of what has been said to the com-trary, I still stick to my opinion that this country is not a loser as the result of work being done outside the Printing Bureau, and I am quite satisfied that if my hon. friend had heard the testimony of the King's Printer before the Public Accounts Committee he would share the opinion which I hold, that the fact that work is done outside does not necessarily mean that money is lost to the people of the country. I am quite sure that if the King's Printer finds his work crowded in the Printing Bureau and if he looks around him he can have his work done without entailing any loss to himself or the country. The work would be expedited, and I have no doubt that we could get many returns before we are now able to get them if the King's Printer were to send them to outside offices. The work might necessarily have to go outside the city of Ottawa, but that is no reason why the work should not be done outside. The only condition which should be considered in this connection is that the work should be done at a reasonable price, and the prices that prevail in the printing offices of this country compare very favourably and, in some instances, as I have observed, are lower than the amount for which the work can be done here. I am perfectly well aware, as my hon. friend says, that this is not a new question. This question has probably been decided some years ago, but perhaps, after all, it has not. It is not so absolutely decided that it cannot be resurrected and considered at the present time or in the future, but I do say that it is well worth considering as to whether or not just as good satisfaction can be had by following the suggestion I made in favour of having work done outside as from having it done at the Printing Bureau under the conditions which prevail there. These conditions have been the subject of complaint here. The King's Printer, before the Public Accounts Committee, during the present session, sounded a note of warning. He said that for many years, for as far back, I think, as ten or twelve years, he has been annually bringing this question to the attention of parliament. He prepared a very elaborate report on one occasion pointing out to members of parliament the necessity that existed for the enlargement of the plant there. Of all the members of parliament, there was but one who took any interest in the matter. There was one member out of two hundred and thirteen who took sufficient trouble to read the report which he made to parliament on that occasion, and at the very earliest opportunity that member was defeated. He rather gave it as a warning that nobody should take any further stock 221
in any reports which he put forward as to-the inability of the present plant to cope with the situation. Therefore it is that I throw out the suggestion that before deciding that the plant should be enlarged it would be well to consider whether or not the work could be as well, as cheaply and as expeditiously performed there as elsewhere.
Cantingent expenses in connection with the voters' lists, $40,000.


Uriah Wilson: When this matter was up a few nights ago under the supplementary estimates, I asked the hon Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) how these voters' lists were printed, if they were printed every year and distributed to members. I could tell him, as a matter of fact, that they had not been distributed to me.


Wilfrid Laurier: I tbiuk the lists are printed as fast as they come.


Uriah Wilson: I do not think so.


Wilfrid Laurier: That is the intention, but as my hon. friend knows, the lists are revised at different times in different provinces. In Quebec and Ontario they are now revised about April, but it often happens that there are appeals.


Uriah Wilson: The final revision takes place before a judge in Ontario.


Wilfrid Laurier: We do not print the lists until they have the seal of the authority of the final revision. At all events it is the intention of the government to print the lists as fast as they come in.


Uriah Wilson: Does the government print the lists for every constituency each year. Last parliament I know that in some constituencies in New Brunswick they had two lists before I could get one for Lennox, Ontario. I think I only got one voters' list during the whole parliament, and that before the last general election.


Wilfrid Laurier: I cannot say how the orders have been carried out, but I understand that the instructions to the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery are that as soon as lie receives the lists he shall send them to the Printing Bureau.


Uriah Wilson: Every year?


Wilfrid Laurier: As fast as they come; if they come every year they are sent to the printer.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: I think my right hon. friend is mistaken. My recollection is that the lists were only to be printed when an election was to take place.


Mr. BRODEUR.: The law provides that the lists be printed every year.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: One of the reasons for repealing tlie old franchise law was because of the expense of printing these lists every year. I am surprised to hear from the right hon. gentleman that the lists are now printed every year. They should only be printed when they are needed. Generally speaking, an election may not be expected for three or four years in most constituencies, and as the lists will be greatly modified before they are needed for our elections, I do not see why they should be printed.


Wilfrid Laurier: Does my hon. friend think the lists, should not be printed as fast as they come?


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: I cannot see the use of printing the lists when they are not needed.


Wilfrid Laurier: I am glad to hear it, and when next we discuss the matter I will be prepared to give an answer to my hon. friend.


Richard Blain: In the province of Ontario, the voters' lists are printed by each municipality every year, and these municipal lists with the same names on them are sent to the Printing Bureau in order to make up the Dominion lists. It seems to me that in any province where each municipality prints the voters' lists every year, it is a useless expenditure to have them reprinted in the Printing Bureau here when the general election comes off. It seems to me that if the government take this matter into their serious consideration, they must arrive at the conclusion that it would be very much better to adopt the lists as they are printed in the province each year.


Wilfrid Laurier: That is quite reasonable and for my part I would favour it. I have to say to my hon. friend from Beauharnois (Mr. Bergeron) that I was wrong in my statement; I am informed that the lists are printed only when they are required.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: That is what I understood when the law was passed. How much of this vote did you spend last year?


Wilfrid Laurier: I cannot say. This is a precaution that is taken in case of an emergency.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: This year it may not be needed.


Wilfrid Laurier: It may not. and I do not expect it will.


George Eulas Foster: It might be.


Wilfrid Laurier: It might be ; there is no telling what may take place.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: It is not voted with the intention of spending it ?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: 


Wilfrid Laurier: No, hut I do not see why we should not gratify even the wildest dreams of gentle nen opposite.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: In that event I will not criticise the vote.
Fenian Raid pensions, $2,400.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: Will the right hon. gentleman tell us something about the proposed land grant to the Fenian Raid veterans ?


Wilfrid Laurier: That matter is under consideration.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: I know cases where the widows of some of the officers who rendered valuable service to the country during the Fenian Raid, have never received pensions in any shape or form. As I understand it the land grant will be given to those who are still living, and it would in no way benefit the widows of deceased veterans. The country appreciates the fact that we owe some debt of gratitude to these people, and the proof is that this vote is always passed without criticism. It seems to me that we should go a little further and that in certain cases where men now deceased have rendered valuable military service to the country in other directions, it would he proper to recognize the services by granting some compensation to the survivors of their families who may be in need of assistance. Would it not be proper for parliament to come to the rescue of these people in the same way that we are now voting these items?


Wilfrid Laurier: The class of cases to which my hon. friend alludes is of a different character from the class covered here. These pensions on acount of the Jfeuian raid-I speak under correction -must be to persons who were wounded or disabled. My hon. friend .is proposing another class of pensions for military service, out of the ordinary. We? have not under our law given any pensions for that, class of service. Whether we will do it or not is a matter for consideration ; but that is not included in this vote.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: Then, I am surprised that the names of'those to whom we pay the pensions are not mentioned.


Wilfrid Laurier: The< names are given, and I will have them for my hon. friend to-morrow.
Compensation to pensioners in lieu of land, $116.76.


Uriah Wilson: This is a small vote, but I think it ought to be explained.


Wilfrid Laurier: I did not take the1 trouble to get explanations of these matters, which have been on the votes for several years ; but I will give the explanation to my hon. frietnd on concurrence.

Pensions payable to militiamen on account of the rebellion of 1885, and active services generally, $19,000.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: That is the same thing. I belieVe it would be a good thing to have the names. We all know that the United States government is paying more for pensions on account of the Civil War than it did at .the commencement. The pensioners, instead of dying, are increasing in number.


Wilfrid Laurier: I am informed -that the names are all given in the Auditor General's Report.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: Then there ought to be a reference in the estimates to the page in the Auditor General's Report.


George Eulas Foster: I understand that there is no extension. These amounts were settled, and if there i.s any change at all, 'it will be a diminution.


Wilfrid Laurier: Exactly. No new name is added. If the name drops, the amount drops accordingly. I will get the names.
Northwest Mounted Police-Northwest Territories, $535,000.


Wilfrid Laurier: I do not intend to take up this Item this evening, as I do not see present any member from the Northwest, and I would ask that $25,000 for buildings be reserved, and when we take that up, I will give all the explanations I have to give. I may say that the increase of $35,000 was due to the Bill passed this session to increase the pay of the men from 75 cents to $1 a day, no't at one fell swoop, bu't according to length of service.	[DOT]
Miscellaneous printing. $40,000.


Wilfrid Laurier: 
Uriah Wilson: I am afraid it won't do it.


Wilfrid Laurier: We have done it before.
Expenses in connection with the Canada Temperance Act, $500.


Wilfrid Laurier: This is taken in case we should have an election in a county. We spent nothing last year on this account, and probably will not spend anything this year ; but we take this money in case there is a vote in a county.
Returns and other expenses under the Naturalization Act, $3,000.


George Eulas Foster: What are the items ?


Wilfrid Laurier: This is to pay clerks of courts for furnishing returns of all 221J
the naturalization papers which are issued in the year.


George Eulas Foster: What other expenses are there ?


Wilfrid Laurier: I do not know that there are any others.


George Eulas Foster: How many were naturalized last year ?


Wilfrid Laurier: I could not tell, it is in our records somewhere. I will get it to-morrow.
Unforeseen expenses, expenditure thereof to bo under Order in Council, and a detailed statement to be laid before parliament within the first fifteen days of next session, $30,000.


George Eulas Foster: Is this the secret service fund ?


Wilfrid Laurier: My hon. friend understands what this is for.


Samuel Barker: Anything spent last year ?


Wilfrid Laurier: I think we spent nearly the whole of it.
Salaries and contingencies of the Paris agency, $6,500.


David Henderson: That requires some explanation.


Wilfrid Laurier: This is a very old friend. Mr. Fabre is our commissioner at Paris, and has been since 1881, I believe. Everybody knows the Paris agency, especially those who have been in Paris. The duties performed by Mr. Fabre are well known. He was first appointed commissioner of immigration, but I do not know that he has been very successful in that work. In other respects, however, I think he has been a very efficient and useful officer.	'	i


Mr. FOSTER  .@: Outside of immigration, what does he do from year to year ?


Wilfrid Laurier: I do not know that he does anything except to keep the office open and furnish information to Canadians. The number of Canadians who now visit Europe is very large. As soon as they reach Paris they go to the commissioner's office for all the information they want, and they get it. They register their names, they have their mail sent there, and are able by means of this agency to keep track of their friends. I think Mr. Fabre renders valuable service in these respects.


George Eulas Foster: What portion of this is for Mr. Fabre's salary ?


Wilfrid Laurier: I think the greater part is for salary, I could not say how much exactly. But there is the rent of the building to pay, repairs, furniture, &c.


George Eulas Foster: Has he any staff ?


Wilfrid Laurier: He has no staff except a secretary, that he pays out of his own pocket.

Academy of Arts, $2,000.


George Eulas Foster: Is this for pictures ?


Wilfrid Laurier: No, this amount is given to the Royal Academy of Arts in this city. If my memory serves me well, this is a special vote given to a certain society in Ottawa to encourage art-the school of design, I thing.


George Eulas Foster: The; right hon, gentleman may be right, but I am inclined to think his recollection is not accurate.


Wilfrid Laurier: Well, let it! stand.	'
Miscellaneous-expenses of litigated matters between the Dominion of Canada and the provinces of Ontario and Quebec (payments on account of service rendered may be made to members of the Civil Service, notwithstanding anything in the Civil Service Act) $3,000.


David Henderson: When is this likely to be brought to an end ?


Wilfrid Laurier: I wish I knew. It has been there to my certain knowledge for ne'arly forty years. It has been gradually decreased every year, but ic has no# yet come to an absolute termination. If my hon. friend asks me when ic will come to an end, I am sorry to say I cannot give him much information, nor, I am afraid, very much hope.


David Henderson: Is no progress being; made ?


Wilfrid Laurier: I understand there is progress being made1.


David Henderson: It is sometimes hinted that certain gentlemen keep that matter on foot all the time ; it brings in. a certain revenue yearly and it is a matter, of importance to those who are interested to keep it going along. I am not convinced that the difficulties are so great that the matter could not he brought to a termini ation. Surely now, nearly forty years after confederation we should pretty well under^ stand how financial matters rest between the Dominion and the old provinces of Ontario and Quebec. I really think the government should urge the commissioners to bring in a report covering a final settlement of these old questions. There may be some considerable interest involved, but a hint from the government might do much to bring the matter to an end.


Wilfrid Laurier: I need hardly remind my hon. friend (Mr. Henderson) that the mills of the gods grind slow and the mills of the courts grind-


David Henderson: Slower still. ,


Wilfrid Laurier: I will not say that, nor yet will I take issue with my hon. friend on that point. My hon. friend is aware that time and again points have been decided by the commissioners, Sir WILFRID LAURIER.
then taken to the courts, and there appealed to. the higher courts. Gradually all the questions have been settled-I believe only cne qu st'on n w remains for consideration and decision.


David Henderson: Is that that bridge question in Quebec ? I understand that there was $37,000 involved in some question cdncer'ning a bridge-I think it was over the Yam a ska river. It seems a pity to keep this whole question open on that account. It would he better to pay for the bridge and let the matter be wiound up.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: I think the matter to which my hon. friend (Mr. Henderson) refers is the1 Richelieu bridge matter, which was disposed of by the courts.


David Henderson: Possibly the hon. gentleman (Mr. Brodeur) may be right. Now that I come to think of it, I believe the commissioners decided-and decided against Quebec, did they not ?-but allowed an appeal if the parties were not satisfied. So. if it! is before the courts it is olne of the matters still unsettled.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: 
David Henderson: That is the case that had something to do with the Yuile family ?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Yes.
Some resolutions reported.
Sir WIUFRID LAURIER moved the adjournment of the House.


David Henderson: Is the Supply Bill not ready ?


Wilfrid Laurier: No.


George Eulas Foster: What business will be taken up to-morrow ?
Sir WILFRID LAuRIER. We expect to take up the' Supply Bill, then the resolution of tlie Minister of Militia (Sir Frederick Borden) and, in that connection the subject brought up by the hon. member (Mr. Foster) about cutting down the militia establishment.


George Eulas Foster: And clause 16 o:f the Autonomy Bill ?


Wilfrid Laurier: I think we shall Resume that on Thursday when the Minister of Justice (Mr. Fitzpatrick) is here.


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

Tuesday, June 6, 1905.