1905-01-31

Mr.  W. A.@: GALLIHER moved for leave to introduce Bill (No. 12) respecting the Ottawa Electric Company.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Explain.


Mr. GALLIHER.: The Bill is along the lines of the one introduced last year ; in fact, it is the same Bill.


Mr. FOSTER.: To new members like myself that does not convey any instruction. Cannot the hon. gentleman give us briefly the purport of the Bill ?	-


William Alfred Galliher: Shortly, the Bill is to acquire the power to purchase stock in other companies.


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

Mr.  C. A.@: GAUYREAU moved for leave to introduce Bill (No. 13) respecting the Atlantic, Quebec and Western Railway Company.


George Eulas Foster: We should have some explanation of this, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. GAUYREAU.: (Translation.) Mr. Speaker, by this Bill the company is simply asking for an extension of time.


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

Mr.  H. B.@: AMES moved for leave to introduce Bill (No. 14) respecting the Mol-sons Bank.


Mr. FITZPATRICK.: Would the hon. gentleman explain the provisions of the Bill ?


Mr. AMES.: The Bill provides for a redistribution of the capital stock of the Mol-sons Bank, so that the shares hereafter instead of being $50-shares may be $100-shares.


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

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 11) respecting the Columbia and Western Railway Company.-Mr. Galliher.
Bill (No. 15) respecting the St. Mary's and Western Ontario Railway Company.

Mr. McIntyre.
Bill (No. 10) respecting certain patents of the Canada Car Company, Limited.-Mr. L. P. Demers.
Bill (No. 17) respecting certain patents of the Goodwin Car Co.-Mr. Demers (St. John and Iberville).
Bill (No. IS) respecting the Ottawa, Northern and Western Railway Company.-Mr. Parmelee.
Bill (No. 20) to incorporate the Moosejaw and Edmonton Railway Company.-Mr. Scott-by Mr. Logan.

Mr.  J. H.@: LOGAN moved for leave to introduce Bill (No. 19) to incorporate the Calgary, Red Deer and Battleford Railway Company.


Mr. SAM. HUGHES.: Explain that.


Mr. LOGAN.: The object of the Bill is to incorporate a company to build a railway from Calgary to Battleford. That is all the explanation.


Samuel Hughes: Is this to revive a charter that was extinct last year ?


Hance James Logan: No. It is to create a new company.


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

Mr. GEO. D. GRANT moved :: That in accordance with the recommcndation contained in the report of the Select Standing Committee on Standing Orders, the time for receiving petitions for Private Bills and also the time for presenting Private Bills be extended to Thursday, February 23, and Thursday, March 9, respectively. .	.


Hon. JOHN HAGGART.: I do not think there is any thing very objectionable in the motion, but I must object to the motion for the adoption of the report being made on the very day the report comes in. I think that objection should apply to all reports. We should have an opportunity to see what they are before a motion is mado for their adoption.


Mr. T. S. SPROULE.: As one who has often objected to motions of this kind in former years, I object again. It seems to me that they always tend unnecessarily to lengthen the session. Either the time is sufficiently long to allow parties to introduce their Bills, or it is not. The judgment of parliament was that the time was sufficiently long and therefore it made the rule. If the time is not sufficiently long, then we should amend the rule and make it longer. If the rule is what parliament thinks it ought to be, we should not violate it so often. I had the assurance of the Prime Minister last year that all and sundry ought to take notice that in future it wmuld be the aim of parliament to confine them within the limits of the rule as nearly as possible, and that when a violation of the rule took place, there must be a strong and exceptional reason given for it.


John Graham Haggart: I raise the point of order, that the motion is out of order.


Mr. SPEAKER.: I think the objection is a good one, and the motion will have to stand as a notice.



THE SAFETY OF SHIPS.

Mr.  J. H.@: SINCLAIR (Guysboro') moved for leave to introduce Bill (No. 21) to amend tlie Act respecting the safety of ships. He said : Under the existing regulations tramp boats of the class known as shelter deck boats, are not allowed during the winter season to carry timber between the main deck and the upper deck, and the purpose of this Bill is to permit them to carry deals and timber in that space. The policy of the government is to make no change of this kind unless it is approved by the Board of Trade in England, and I have taken the precaution to ask the Department of Marine and Fisheries to communicate with that authority to see if this change will be acceptable to them. I do not intend to press the Bill to a finish unil we hear that it is acceptable to the British Board of Trade.


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

Hon.   CHAS@: FITZPATRICK (Minister of Justice) moved that the House do on Friday next go into Committee of the Whole to consider the following proposed resolution :
1.	Resolved, That if a judge of any Superior Court in Canada is appointed Chief Commissioner of the Board of Railway Commissioners for Canada, he shall not be removed at any time by the Governor in Council except upon address of the Senate and House of Commons.
2.	Resolved, That if any chief commissioner of the Board of Railway Commissioners for Canada, having been at the time of his appointment as such chief commissioner a judge of any Superior Court in Canada, or having resigned his office as such judge for the purpose of accepting appointment as such chief commissioner, has continued in office as judge of one or more Superior Courts in Canada and in the said office of chief commissioner for periods amounting together to fifteen years or upwards, or has become afflicted with a permanent infirmity disabling him from the due execution of his office, and if such chief commissioner resigns his office, or if his term of office, or any renewed term of office, has expired, His Majesty may, by letters patent under the Great Seal, reciting such periods of office or such permanent infirmity, grant to such chief commissioner an annuity equal to two-thirds of the salary of the judicial office which he held at the time of his appointment as such chief commissioner, or which he resigned for the purpose of accepting such appointment, to commence immediately after his so ceasing to hold office as such chief commissioner, to continue thenceforth during his natural life, and to be payable by monthly instalments and pro rata for any period less than a year during such continuance.
3.	Resolved, That if any such chief commissioner of the Board of Railway Commissioners resigns his office or completes his term of service, original or renewed, therein, having, in either such case,
(a)	attained the age of seventy-five years, and continued in office as such judge and in the said The SPEAKER.
office of chief commissioner for periods amounting together to twenty years or upwards, or
(b)	attained the age of seventy years, and continued in office as such judge and in the said office of chief commissioner for periods amounting together to twenty-five years or upwards, or
(c)	continued in office as such judge and in the said office of chief commissioner for periods amounting together to thirty years or upwards,
His Majesty may, by letters patent under the Great Seal, reciting such period of service, and, in cases (a) and (b), such chief commissioner's age, grant to him an annuity, payable as aforesaid, equal to the salary of the judicial office which he held at the time of his appointment as such chief commissioner, or which he resigned for the purpose of accepting such appointment, to commence immediately after his resignation as chief commissioner and to continue thenceforth during his natural life.
4.	Resolved, That if between the date of the
appointment of any such chief commissioner or of his resignation of his office as such judge and the date of his resignation of, or retirement from, the office of chief commissioner, the salary attached to the judicial office which he held at the time of his appointment, or which he resigned for the purpose of accepting appointment as such chief commissioner, has been increased, the annuity to be granted to him hereunder may be increased in the same proportion.	'
5.	Resolved, That local judges in Admiralty of the Exchequer Court shall be deemed to be judges of a Superior Court within the meaning hereof.
He said: I have the authority of the Grown to introduce these resolutions.


Mr. W. F. MACLEAN.: I must take the rather unusual course on this motion of drawing the attention of the government to the condition of affairs that exists in the country in connection with the matter treated in this resolution. It is so important that I think I shall be able to show the government that its duty is rather to abandon this legislation and take advantage of the legislation which now exists and proceed to fill up the vacancy in the Railway Commission. What is the situation In the country to-day ?


Sir WILFRID LAURIER.: I raise the
point of order that at this stage no debate is allowed.


William Findlay Maclean: My hon. friend the First Minister has made a motion and I am drawing the attention of the government in the country to a certain condition existing in connection with this very question.


Wilfrid Laurier: The motion
just made has always been taken as simply a notice of motion.


Robert Franklin Sutherland: I think the point well taken. The hon. gentleman cannot debate the question at this stage.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: On Friday next wilt not the Speaker have to leave the Chair, in compliance with the motion just made, and allow the House to go into Committee of
#

the Whole without a motion to that effect being made again, and will not this preclude any debate before the House is in committee ?


Wilfrid Laurier: No, in the case of all resolutions dealing with money, the first stage consists of giving notice that on a certain day a motion will be made that the House go into a Committee of the Whole. The second stage then will be the debate on that motion with the Speaker in the Chair. The resolution is then moved in committee and the committee reports. But the report of the committee cannot be concurred in until the following day. The most ample discussion is therefore allowed at every stage. I would draw my hon. friend's attention to rule 93 :
If any motion be made in the House for any public aid or charge upon the people, the consideration and debate thereon may not be presently entered upon, but shall be adjourned till such further day as the House thinks fit to appoint, and then it shall be referred to a Committee of the Whole House before any resolutions or vote of the House do pass thereupon.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

George Eulas Foster: Before the Orders of the Day are called, can the hon. gentleman give any information as to whether the membership of the transportation commission is complete, and also wheher any reports have 5 et been made ?


Wilfrid Laurier: I could not give the answer to my hon. friend now but will do so to-morrow



MINISTERS OF FINANCE AND INTERIOR.

George Eulas Foster: Can my right hon. friend tell us when we may have the pleasure of seeing the Finance Minister (Mr. Fielding) in his place. I observe also that another minister, the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Sifton) is absent. When shall we see him back in this sphere of activity ?


Wilfrid Laurier: I think that the Minister of the Interior will be here about February 15. I am sorry to say that I cannot give definite information regarding the Minister of Finance, and my hon. friend will regret this as much as I do. The last information I have is regarding a domestic matter which has kept him in Vienna longer than he expected.



REPORTS PRESENTED.

[Stage Direction]
Report of the Department of Agriculture for the year ending October 31, 1904 (Mr. Fisher).
Report of the Department of Trade and Commerce for the year ending June 30, 1904-Hon. Wm. Paterson.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 7) respecting the Inspection and Sale of Seeds-Mr. Fisher-was read the second time, and the House went into Committee thereon.
Thomas Simpson Sproule: Is this the same Bill that was before the House last year and the year before?


Hon. SYDNEY FISHER (Minister of Agriculture).: Practically it is. There are, however, certain slight modifications which I shall explain in general terms. My hon. friend (Mr. Sproule) who lias asked me this question, will remember that the Bill as introduced last session was for the purpose of controlling the sale of agricultural seeds, so as to remove a grievance or difficult}' which lias existed in the past, in that these seeds frequently are impure in having the seeds of weeds mixed with them, or in the seeds not being germinable, thus causing loss to the purchaser both in their purchase and in their use. For the purpose of learning the facts I instructed an officer in my department to investigate this question. As much as four years ago, this officer went carefully into the subject. He took a large number of samples of the seeds that were being sold in various parts of Canada and analyzed by methods well known in seed laboratories. His reports show that there was a real need for control over this trade. Investigation proved that large quantities of very inferior seeds were being sold in this country, and that in those seeds there was a large number of weed seeds, often the seeds of weeds that were unknown in the locality where the seed was to be fised, so that the result of its use would be to introduce into localities pernicious weeds which, till that time, had not been known in those localities. This was one part of the evil. The other part was that in frequent instances seed was sold under false names, that is, it was not what it was represented to be. A notorious instance of that kind was found in the eastern part of Canada, where a seed was sold purporting to be the seed of a spring grain, when, as a matter of fact, it was the seed of a grain which was to be sown in the fall in order to ripen. Again large quantities of seeds were sold of which a proportion, in some cases a considerable proportion, was not germinable. The purchaser, not knowing this, sowed the usual quantity and, of course, got little, if any, return. These difficulties in the trade were the more likely to' continue, because the farmer who purchased the seed had no means of determining its value. In some cases, of course, the weed seeds are quite apparent, but, not unfrequently, these seeds are not recognizable by the farmers. Sometimes they are seeds of weeds entirely unknown in the purchaser's locality, or in many cases, the farmer is not familiar with the seeds of even the ordinary weeds of his



own neighbourhood. In many other instances the value of the seed could not be determined except by what I might call laboratory methods, such as have been in established use for some time in other countries. In the United States and various European countries, the laboratory investigation of the quality and value of seeds has been carried on for . many years. There is to-day a thoroughly established method for the examination and testing of seeds of all kinds. We thought it wise that the advantages of science should be put within reach of the farmers of the Dominion of Canada for their protection in the seed trade. I therefore, established in the department a seed laboratory and the work of that labora- j tory has since been going on. I am glad to say that, by the testimony of the seedsmen themselves as well as of many farmers, the investigations and reports of this branch have contributed materially to improvement in the trade, and that for the last year or two there has been a decided improvement in the quality of the seeds sold to our farmers. A greater number of farmers to-day are critical of the seed they buy than formerly, and their knowledge has compelled improvement. But there is much yet to be done.


Samuel Hughes: Mr. Chairman, I rise to a point of order. There are many on this side anxious to hear the eloquence of the hon. minister and to follow his explanation, yet there is not an hon. gentleman on the ministerial side paying the slightest attention, and the noise of their conversation makes it impossible for us to hear the minister. I ask you to call the hon. gentlemen to order.


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER.: I hope lion, gentlemen will keep order for it is very unpleasant for a speaker to be interrupted.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: The noise was not inter-ferring with me, Mr. Chairman, though I would prefer to talk without so much effort.
I need hardly say that I am not attempting any eloquence in regard to a matter of busi-nes such as this. I was saying that, though much had been accomplished there is still room for improvement. While the general average of the trade has been improved, I regret to say there are still in our country a number of men who handle seeds for agricultural purposes who do not seem to be alive to the importance of the trade and who still deal in very inferior seeds. This House has practically declared its opinion that a law should be passed to control this trade. A Bill was introduced last session, but was dropped because, owing to the lateness and length of the session, it was deemed impossible to make it law. I hope that, introducing it as I have done this session, at an early stage, when there is every opportunity for hon. members to give attention to the subject, the re-Mr. FISHER.
suit will be better. I think I can fairly call for the co-operation of members on both sides to effect this improvement in the relation of the farmers to those who supply them with seed, and that I may look with confidence to the Bill being passed into law. I shall be extremely disappointed if the Bill is not passed this session. I need hardly go into details in explaining the Bill, but may say in general terms that we wish to provide by this Bill machinery which will, in the first place prevent the sale of seed containing more than a certain number of seeds of pernicious weeds, the presence of the seeds of which, I consider, makes seed unfit to be sold in Canada. Section 3 and section 0 combined absolutely prohibit the sale of seeds containing certain weeds. In addition to that, we propose to establish a grade or standard of the seeds which shall be permitted to be sold with the brand of No. 1. or of an extra quality upon it. That is established by section 4. Then we propose to provide machinery by which the law may be carried out. I think, in brief language, I have given the substance of the Bill. The details will come up as the various sections are considered. I think perhaps it is better that I should defer the explanations of the changes that have been made in the present Bill as compared with the Bill of last session until we come to each section, when I will be able to explain more fully. Again I would repeat for the information of the House that the general proposals of the Bill are:	In the first place, to prohibit absolutely the sale of seed which contains seeds of particularly pernicious weeds; and secondly, to provide a standard, a No. 1 quality of seed.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: We have had this same Bill before the House during two previous sessions. The first time, I understood, it was allowed to drop because it was found objectionable to seedsmen, and to farmers as well. Last year it was put on the paper at a reasonably early period of the session, and, of course, could have been put through if the government had made any effort to do so. Therefore, the minister and his side of the House are responsible for the Bill not going through last year. There was time enough, but it was assumed that so many objections were raised throughout the country that the government thought better not to push it on. Alight I ask whether, since then, the government have received numerous objections to the Bill, or whether reasons have been given why it should not pass, or amendments suggested. In my experience the seedsmen do not look upon it with much favour, whatever the farmers may think.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I think my hon. friend put the matter a little strongly when he alleged the reasons for the Bill not having been pxit through and made law last session. It is true the Bill was introduced about the mid-

die of die session, I think, but at the same time there was a great deal of other pressing matter before the House. Also certain: opposition to the Bill developed, chiefly on the part of the hon. gentlemen opposite, but on the part of a few gentlemen on this side of the House as well, who were afraid that the Bill might interfere unfairly with the trade. The seedsmen made certain objections. I do not remember, however, at the present time that any farmers' organization or any representative farmers intimated that there was anything in the Bill that they ob: jected to. On the contrary, I was able to quote and to show last session, and the session before, a very strong demand on the part of those organizations who in Canada largely speak for the farmers in a nonpolitical sense ; they wanted a Bill of this kind. The opposition which developed was raised chiefly at the instance of the seedsmen. But their objections were thoroughly threshed out last year, and related only to slight points which I have to a certain extent modified in the present Bill. But at the same time I do not profess to have met their views entirely, because if I did meet their views entirely I think the Bill would be practically emasculated, and would be of no use for the purpose of protecting farmers in the trade. I acknowledge that if this Bill did not tread upon the toes of somebody in the trade it would be unnecessary, and I would not have introduced it. It is only because there are certain people who deal in seeds in this country who require to be regulated by law that this Bill is necessary, and for that reason only am I desirous of making the Bill law. I speak of these people knowing well that they do not include the large majority of the seed dealers, who are an honourable body of men, who deal honestly and fairly, and carry on their trade in a reputable way. At the same time there are. unfortunately, certain other men dealing in seeds that ought not to be sold, and it is for the purpose of restraining these men that we find the necessity of this Bill. As I said a moment ago, when we come to the details of the measure I will be able to explain the slight modifications which I have made, and which will, I think, to a large extent meet the objections which some of the reputable traders in seeds expressed last session.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I think the minister, whether wittingly or unwittingly, does the opposition great injustice when he intimates that it was because of the opposition they (raised to the Bill that it was left over last session. The Bill was discussed, and after a lengthy discussion the opposition expected the Bill would go through. They had raised all the objections that they thought desirable to raise, and drew the minister's attention to the weak features of the Bill. After that they expected the Bill would be gone on with, and paid no more attention to it. But the government did not make any effort to lli
carry it through, the minister did not make any effort to carry his own Bill through. The reason which he gives to-day seems to me not to be a good one, that is to say, it was not pushed through because there was other more important business before the House for the government to deal with. According to the explanation which the hon. gentleman gave us at first he would seem to regard this measure as one of the most important which could be brought before this iHouse ; but if the interest of the farming community is to be staved off until every other measure and every other interest is attended to, and finally this Bill is to be thrown over, it seems to me that it is not very complimentary to the farmers. My first inquiry was as to whether this Bill was exactly the same as the previous Bills; also whether the hon. gentleman had received any objections to this Bill. If so, we can deal with them when we come to them.
On section 2,


Sydney Arthur Fisher: That fixes the date of the coming into operation of the Act. We will let that section stand.
On section 3,
No person shall sell, or offer, expose or have in his possession for sale, for the purpose of seeding, any seeds of cereals, grasses, clovers or forage plants unless they are free from any seeds of the following weeds :-Wild Mustard or Charlock, (Brassica Sinapistrum, Boss); Tumbling Mustard, (Sisymbrium sinapistrum, Crants.) ; Hare's Ear Mustard, (Coringia orientalis, Dumort.) ; Ball Mustard, (Neslia paniculata, L. Desv.) ; Field Pennycress or Stinkweed, (Thlaspi arvense, L.) ; Wild Oats,' (Avena fatua, L. and avena strigosa, Scljreb.) ; Bindweed, (Convulvuilus arvensis, L.) ; Per-enniel Sow-Thistle, (Sonchus arvensis, L.) ; Ragweed, (Ambrosia artemisiaefolia, L.); Great Rag-weed, (Ambrosia trifida, L.); PurpJe Cockle, (Lychnis Githago, Lam.); Cow Cockle, (Vac-caria Vaccarla, L.) Britton) ; Orange Hawkweed or Paint Brush, (Hieracium aurantiacum, L. and Hieracium praealtum, Vill.); Ergot of Rye, (Claviceps purpurea, Till.), unless each and every receptacle, package, sack or bag containing such seeds, or a label securely attached thereto, is marked in a plain and indelible manner-
(a.) with the full name and address of the seller ;
(b.) with the name of the kind or kinds of seed ;	.
(e.) with the common name or names of the aforenamed weeds, the seeds of which are present in the seed sold or offered, exposed or had in possession for sale.
2. The provisions contained in this section shall not apply to the sale of seed that is grown, sold and delivered by any farmer on his own premises, for seeding by the purchaser himself, unless the purchaser of the said seed obtains from the seller at the time of the sale thereof a certificate that the said seed is supplied to him subject to the provisions of this Act.


Mr. LENNOX.: I call tlie attention of the hon. minister to the wording of this

32S
clause. It does not appear to me that it reads very well :
No person shall sell, or offer, expose or have ; in his possession for sale, for the purpose of seeding, any seeds of cereals, grasses, clovers or forage plants unless they are free from any seeds of the following weeds-
Then, reciting these weeds, it goes on again :	,
-unless each and every receptable, package, sack or bag containing such seeds, or a label securely attached thereto, is marked in a plain and indelible manner.
These two words ' unless ' do. not harmonize or make complete sense. As the intention evidently is that these seeds shall not be offered for sale unless properly labelled, I would suggest that the section be made to read :
No person shall sell, or offer, expose or have in his possession for sale, for the purpose of seeding any seeds of cereals, grasses, clovers or fotrage plants having therein the following weeds-
Reciting them, and then going on :
-unless each' and every receptable, package, sack or bag containing such seeds, or a label securely attached thereto, is marked in a plain and indelible manner.
I think that would make it read better.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I think perhaps the criticism of my hou. friend (Mr. Lennox) is correct when he says that the two words ' unless ' do not sound well. The meaning, however, is just the same.


Haughton Lennox: I think it would read better, and be clearer.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I think it would read better. but I do not think it is worth while making the change.


George Eulas Foster: I think the suggestion is an improvement.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I think it is in the wording.
I do not see any objection to the change.


Mr. NORTHRUP.: If the hon. minister would add the one word ' and,' I think it would cover the point.


Haughton Lennox: I move that the amendment be made in the way I suggest.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: That change, which changes the form, so to speak, of a clause, might interfere with the wording of the Bill later on, and I think it would be better perhaps to leave it at the present time until we see whether a change in the form of the sentence might not interfere with the form of any of the sections afterwards. I will bear in mind the suggestion, and before we report the Bill we may deal with it.


Haughton Lennox: Very good. I am satisfied with that, but I do not think it can interfere with anything subsequently appear-Mr. LENNOX.
ing in the Bill. Then, in reference to the other part of the clause-subsection 2-and Uiis is probably a finer distinction than the Other, I would suggest that the words [DOT] that is,' immediately before the word ' grown,' be left out, merely for better reading.
The provisions contained in this section, shall not apply to the sale of seed that is grown, &c.
It would read better as follows :
The provisions contained in this section shall not apply to the sale of seed grown, &c.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Perhaps those words are not necessary. All through the Act we speak of seeds that are free from the seeds of weeds. If we adopted the first suggestion of my hon. friend, substituting for ' unless they are free from any seeds of the following weeds,' the words containing therein ' or ' having therein,' we would be making use of a different form of expression from that which we find in other portions of the Bill. The expression ' free from seeds ' is contained all through the Bill, and it would Vie rather awkward to change it. The words ' that is ' are perhaps unnecessary, but their presence does not interfere with the sense.


William Barton Northrup: I would call the hon. minister's attention 1o the fact that the suggestion of my hon. friend from South Slm-c-oe (Mr. Lennox) would be met by simply putting the word ' and ' before the second ' unless.' That would avoid any complication, and perhaps meet the views of my hon. friend.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I think that would change the sense.


William Findlay Maclean: Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the lion. Minister of Agriculture for some information in regard to' the extent of the weed plague, both in the eastern portion of the country and in the Northwest Territories. Is it a fact that there are more weeds in the west, especially in the wheat country, than formerly, and are they becoming a menace to the growth of wheat in that country ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: In regard to the latter part of my hon. friend's question, I think I am well within the mark in saying that as cultivation increases in the west the number of weeds increases. There is very little of what I might call hoe cultivation, practically none, and without that weeds are sure to increase wherever land is cultivated. They are increasing in that country just as cultivation is increasing. There is also a large introduction of weeds into the west in the crops which, before the land was cropped, .were entirely unknown. How they got there it is not easy to determine. In some cases they have been brought in in seed, and sometimes also they have lain dormant for many years, as weed seeds sometimes will, and are brought out by cultivation. In the eastern parts of Canada good culti-

vation, good farming, reduces the number of weeds. I would not like to say that in that respect our farmers are deteriorating. I think to-day there are more fields that are well cultivated in eastern Canada than there were fifteen or twenty years ago, but at the same time there is a spread of bad weeds in parts of the country where these individual and particular weeds were formerly unknown, and I think it is due to the greater facilities of communication and the greater facilities of trade, inasmuch as seeds that are grown in one part of the country are more often sent to another part of the country than they used to be in the.days of early settlement, when the farmers bought chiefly from their own neighbours and never went far away from home to get their seeds. To-day it is quite a common tiling for farmers in the older provinces of Canada to buy seed that has been grown hundreds of miles away from where it is to be sown. In the days of the early settlement this was not so much the case, and in consequence of this facility of trade new weeds are being found constantly in certain sections Of the country.


William Findlay Maclean: I would like to ask the hou. minister whether he can say there is any relation between the growth of the weed plague in the west and the change in the hard wheat belt. The hard wheat belt seems to be growing and the weed plague seems to be growing. I would ask him if he has any information on that point?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I do not think I have. I do not know of any information that would lead me to believe that the presence of weeds in the soil or the growth of weeds in the crop has affected the quality of the wheat.


William Findlay Maclean: But the hard wheat belt is moving. It does not remain in the same place.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I will accept the hon. gentleman's statement. I do not know whether it is true or not.


William Findlay Maclean: It is.


Haughton Lennox: I understood this section was to stand.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: 1 have no objection In view of the suggestion about the wording, but I would like to finish the discussion on the principle of the section and to adopt that allowing the section to stand only for verbal correction.


Mr. COCKSHCTT.: As one interested in the seed trade for a number of years, I would like to submit a few observations in connection with this clause. I would call attention first to the latter part of the first paragraph of clause 3.
Unless each and every receptacle, package, sack or bag containing such seeds, or a label securely atached thereto, is marked in plain and indelible manner, &e.
I would submit that packages are of different sizes, and that what might be quite
possible in regard to a 200 weight package will be quite impossible in connection with a very small package. The Bill as now framed makes no difference between packages of different size, but the small dealer buys some of his seeds in very small quantities. It would be impossible to put the names of all the noxious weeds on one of these packages as they are not large enough. *In this list there are 25 names, many of which are long and unintelligible to the average farmer. It seems to me that if we are going to have a law of this kind it should be a practical law and one that could be carried out. As a merchant who has been engaged in the handling of seeds, I would like to be in a position to assist in the carrying of legislation which is practical, but I do not think from my experience that all of these names can be put on each receptacle or bag. There is no way in the average seed warehouse of printing all of these names and they would have to be written, which would be a serious matter because sometimes a merchant will have from 100 to 200 packages of seed on hand; to label every one of these packages seems unnecessary so long as the particular package from which the merchant is selling is labelled, in order that the buyer will know what he is buying, which ought to be the principal thing required. There is no intention* on the part of the average merchant to impose on the public seeds that are not fit for sale or use, and I think the seed merchants are as much entitled to respect in this regard as other merchants. They endeavour to do what is right and expect to do business because of the confidence people have in them.
What I cannot understand in- subsection 2 of subsection 3 is why farmers are exempted from tlie legislation which is applied to merchants. Seed that may be purchased from one farmer by another may be as harmful as any seed purchased from a merchant. If the seed sold by the farmer is as noxious as that sold by the merchant, the farmer should be under the same law as the merchant, but according to this subsection, he does not seem to be ; he may sell to his neighbour seed which a merchant would be prohibited from selling. That is one law for the merchant and another for the farmer. I come from a section where seed growing is a considerable business and our farmers are anxious to have their seed placed on the market. If it cannot be so placed then so much money will be tied up in bags, because the law says that the grain cannot be sold as seed as it may contain too much of these weeds.
I submit that these criticisms ought to have the attention of the minister. I regret that the Bill is in my hands now for the first time and that I have not had the pleasure of hearing it discussed before and I would like to have some opportunity of looking into its provisions. I desire to co-

operate with the minister in any way I can, hut I submit that some of these features are impracticable, and I think that we should endeavour to have all legislation that we may pass carried out in the spirit in which it is enacted.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I may tell my hon. friend (Mr. Cockshutt) that I quite concur in his idea that the law should be such as can be carried out easily for the seller as well as the buyer. I have framed the provisions of this Act with that idea always in view, and I think that practically the Act does allow all of that. My hon. friend has made three criticisms of this section which I shall take up one by one. His first criticism is that it will be practically impossible for the seller to put all the names of these weeds on the packages. I may say to my hon. friend frankly that I consider that this section will practically prohibit a seller selling seed with these weeds in it. If he does undertake to sell seed with the names of these seeds on it, and says that they are all in that seed, I do not think that any farmer will buy it. If he is selling seed which contains a majority of the weeds mentioned in that list he ought not to sell it because he will be selling something which will be disgraceful to this trade ; he should be prevented from doing it. It is possible that a man might honestly and properly sell seed containing one or two of those weeds,' and in order to enable that to be done with proper protection to the trade, I have changed the original intention of the Bill as introduced two years ago, when the sale of seed containing any of these weed seeds was to be absolutely prohibited. The Bill in its present form does permit of a little safeguard for the honest seller who may know that there are some of these seeds, a very few, in the seeds they are selling, and who then honestly tell their purchasers of this fact. That provision is made distinctly and directly in the interests of the trade, allowing them to go as far in the way of selling seed containing seeds of these pernicious weeds as I think it would be proper and right to permit.
My hon. friend speaks of the size of the package. These weed seeds would not be in the garden seeds which are sold in small packages such as my hon. friend perhaps has in his mind's eye when he speaks as he has done. A great many garden seeds are sold in little paper packages on which it would be difficult to write the names of these weeds, but we do not expect to find these weeds in these seeds, and if they were in them it would be highly improper and we should do anything we can to prevent it. If a package is large enough to have a label attached to it bearing the name, surname and address of the seller and the name of the variety of the seed contained in it, it would be possible to write on the back of the label the names of the weeds whose Mr. COCKSHUTT.
seeds are contained in it, and there would be no real difficulty in that. If we allow what my hon. friend proposes we would have a condition of affairs under which the farmer would purchase his seed and have it taken perhaps by a scoop out of a large bag or box in the store of the salesman, and afterwards if he found that that seed was not good or if he took a sample of it to be tested by the seed laboratory, it would be impossible for him to prove conclusively that that seed had come out of any individual package or bag or box in the seed salesman's warehouse, and therefore there would be no possibility of proceeding against the salesman.
In regard to the second objection which the hon. gentleman made, that clause 2 of subsection 2, of section 3, seems to exempt farmers from the provisions of this Act. I may say that it only exempts farmers from the provisions of this particular section. The reason for that exemption is this : As my hon. friend says, we do not wish to interfere with the trade of anybody, and more than is absolutely necessary. The provisions of this section are very limited, because they apply only to the case of a farmer who sells seed on his own premises to somebody who is going to use the seed, not to sell again, but for seeding purposes. Practically it exempts the case of a farmer who on his own soil sells seed which he has grown himself on that very soil to a neighbouring farmer who is going to sow it. That does not offend against one principle of this Act, which is intended to prevent the spread of weed seeds in new sections. The farmer does not send it away somewhere pise to be used. In the next place, the farmer who purchases the seed probably knows the land of the farmer who raised it-knows whether it is clean land, knows pretty well what kind of weeds were growing in that farmer's fields, and he purchases the seed with his eyes open to all these things; whereas if the farmer buys seed from the seed merchant, he does net know where the seed was grown, has never seen the fields where ic was grown, does not know whether they were clean or not, does not know whether the seed came from a thousand miles away or from the next farm, and therefore does not know what evil weeds he may be introducing into his own farm and his own section. The two cases are entirely different. It is for the purpose of preventing an unnecessary interference with the sale and purchase of seeds among neighbours where seed is largely grown that this proviso and exemption is made. But the exception is very small, because if the purchaser chooses, he may require that the seed be sold under the provisions of the Act. If he does not require that, he purchases the seed with his eyes open without availing himself of the protection which this Act provides. This

clause is only put In for the purpose of facilitating trade in seeds amongst neighbours, and not unnecessarily interfering with that part of the seed trade. But the trade with seed merchants is so totally different that it requires a supervision and control which the other class of trade does not.


William Foster Cockshutt: The non. gentleman meets to a certain extent the objection which I made, hut still I think not fully, with regard to the sale of seed by one farmer to another. The merchant is deprived of the sale of such seed, and at the same time is hampered with legislation, while the farmer is not. Therefore, he cannot take advantage of the facilities of the Act and do the business he could do. without it. The average profit on a bushel of clover seed is only about five per cent of its value, which constitutes a valid reason why it is not fair to hamper the merchant. It should be remembered that the merchant is not the originator of the seed; but the farmer or grower is. When the farmer takes the seed to market, the buyer may say to him, I must send the seed to the laboratory at Ottawa and ascertain whether it is saleable under the Act; if it is not, I must leave it on your hands. If the merchant practices adulteration, you can punish him; but if he buys from a farmer in good faith and offers the seed for sale in good faith, he is dealing in a fair and honourable way, even though he may not be living up to the strict terms of the Act. The secret of the whole matter is that the farmer is the grower of the seed in the first place, and therefore the Bill should begin with the land. The man who grows the seed is the best judge of what is in it. He knows whether the field is thoroughly clean or whether it is infested with wild oats or mustard, for instance. 1 would rather have two minutes to look over the field where the seed is grown than an hour to examine bag after bag of the seed. Therefore, I think the grower of the seed should be held accountable rather than the merchant or handler of the seed. The merchant should not be hampered more than the farmer is. Both should come under the one law. If the merchant is held amenable to it, so should be the farmer, who in selling to his neighbour is taking away from the merchant the business which he would otherwise have. The merchant has to pay taxes, and he, should be safeguarded in his business. I submit these points for the consideration of the minister.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: My hon. friend has completely endorsed what I said a moment ago, that in such a sale as X referred to, the purchaser does not need the protection of this Act. The hon. gentleman said he would rather have two minutes to examine the field where the seed was grown than an hour or two to examine bag after bag of the seed. That is just what the purchaser does who
buys seed on the premises where it is grown, and therefore he does not need the protection which the farmer does who buys from the seed merchant. But my hon. friend forgets another thing. The seed sold by the farmer must be sold to another farmer for his own use. The seed merchant buys from the farmer who grows the seed, and then cleans the seed. He has appliances and facilities for cleaning it, and as a matter of fact the seedmen of Canada do clean their seed. Further on, the Bill allows the farmer to sell seed to the seed merchant for cleaning purposes. In section 7, there is a provision that if the seed is sold to the merchant to be cleaned, then the provisions of the Act do not apply. The merchant buys from the farmer the poor or dirty seed, and proceeds to clean it and sell it as clean seed. He pays the farmer a much less price for the dirty seed than he receives for the clean seed which he sells, and quite rightly, for he ought to be paid for his work of cleaning it. But it is not necessary that the provisions of the Act should apply where a farmer sells impure or dirty seed to a merchant to be cleaned. The merchant can take care of himself quite well.
'Mr. A. A. WRIGHT. I wish to say one word with reference to this Bill. It came before our farmers' institute a year ago, and there was only one objection which the farmers had to it. It was this, that it prevented the farmers from trading in seed among themselves. You know that a farmer who lives on clay land is always anxious to buy seed from his neighbour who lives on sharp or sandy soil. He thinks that the seed grown upon sharp soil, when sowed upon clay land, would produce a better crop, and that the seed grown upon clay land, when sown upon sharp soil, will produce equally good results. Frequently farmers are anxious to exchange their labour for seed and cannot go to a merchant to buy it. Farmers should have tiie privilege of buying seed from one another without getting into any difficulty under this Act. They buy with their eyes open. An examination of the field when the crop is growing gives a far better idea of the quality of the seeds than looking at the crop after it is harvested and threshed. Consequently, the farmers are anxious that the Bill should be changed so that they might be free to purchase from one another. As regards 'the marking of packages, no one would ever buy seeds which would have on the package the names of all these weeds, and no man would undertake to put up packages of seed for sale which would contain all these foul seeds.


Mr. WALSH.: How will this section affect merchants in the country districts who buy grain from the farmers ? Suppose a merchant buys a lot of grain and the very same day sells a number of packages of the seeds which turn out to contain some foul weeds,

would the merchant be subject to the penalty provided by this Act ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: The exception in this clause only applies to the purchaser who buys front a farmer for the purpose of using the seed hiihself. If the seed is sold to a man who wishes to sell again, all the provisions of the Aet apply.


Robert Nelson Walsh: In many cases the merchants have no way of knowing whether there are foul seeds in the grain purchased or not.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: If they undertake to deal in seeds, they must take the necessary precautions to secure pure seeds.


Sir. LALOR.: How can a country grain dealer, who buys seeds from a farmer and probably the very same day sells some of those seeds, tell whether there are any foul seeds in the grain or not ? I do not see why you should bring him under the provisions of the Act. In allowing one farmer to sell foul seeds to another, you are placing a bonus on the spreading by farmers of foul seeds in the neighbourhood where they live.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: If the local grain dealer buys seed from a farmer, all the provisions of the Act apply to the farmer who sells to him. It is only when a farmer sells to another farmer who intends using the seed for sowing purposes, that the exemption applies. If a farmer sells to a country store-keeper, the store-keeper has the same recourse against the farmer as the farmer would have against him. But if a farmer sells to a merchant, who has cleaning machinery, grain for the purpose of being cleaned. then the provisions of the Act do not apply to the farmer. P.ut if he sells to a purchaser, who intends selling the seed again without cleaning it, then the farmer comes under the Act.


Mr. COCHRANE.: In our section of the . country, the farmers often sell without knowing what the purchaser intends doing with the grain. The purchaser does not let the farmer know that he is buying the grain to sell it as seed. Suppose a farmer sells grain to a grain dealer and then the grain dealer sells some of the grain to another farmer who wants it for seed, in what position would the farmer in the first instance be ? He did not sell the grain to the purchaser in order that the purchaser might sell it again. He sold it that the purchaser might do as he likes with it.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: That would be a matter left to the discretion of the court and the court in such case would probably find the farmer guiltless and the grain merchant guilty.


Mr. BARR.: It seems to me that the object of the Bill is. to a considerable extent, Mr. WALSH.
to furnish grist to the lawyers. The usual custom is for the farmer to sell his grain wherever he finds the best market. Surely there should be a guarantee given the farmer that he did or did not sell the grain for seed. Otherwise the merchant can throw the responsibility back upon the farmer and endless litigation would be the result. There should be some provision to protect the farmer or he will be in continual trouble. No doubt where a seed grower has grown grain for seed, where he has exhibited it for sale as seed, it is necessary that the law should protect the purchaser against the purchase of foul seeds. But when a farmer sells grain without understanding that it is purchased to be sold again as seed, why should he be responsible? A country merchant, purchasing grain from a farmer might ask if he could sell the grain for seed. The farmer, not understanding the law-it would take a long time to understand it-gives his consent, and sells his grain at the best price he can get for it. The merchant can afterwards plead that he purchased the grain for seed and so paid a high price, and, if proceeded against under the law, might throw the responsibility on the farmer. I submit that the farmer, selling his grain in that way must be given better protection than he is given under this Bill.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I sympathize with my hon. friend's (Mr. Barr's) desire to protect both sides of the bargain, and I think this Bill does protect botli sides to the utmost possible extent. My hou. friend says that a country store-keeper buying grain from a farmer can afterwards sell it for seed and pretend that he bought it for seed from the farmer. But the machinery of the Bill, which we come to later on, provides that, in order to be able to make such a plea the purchaser must within seven days take a sample and have it analyzed, and, if the seed is found to be impure or wrongly described, the purchaser must proceed against the farmer from whom he bought the seed for having sold it under false representation. I think this completely protects both sides in the case we are discussing. But I say frankly that I do not want the farmer or the country store-keeper, or the seed merchant either, to be protected so much that we never can convict him if he has done wrong. I want the Bill such that under it wrong-doing can be punished and so prevented. My hon. friend seems to fear that the farmers or country store-keepers will not be informed about the law. As soon as it becomes law I intend to take every means in my power to spread the knowledge of it, as I did with regard to tlie proposals for this Bill, concerning which the farming community are pretty well informed, as well as concerning the discussion of the subject in this House last year. I think the leading farmers, at any rate in

B11 sections of the country, as well as the country store-keepers and the seed merchants are pretty well informed as to what is proposed in this Bill. And they will he still better informed if it becomes law.


Mr. CLEMENTS.: I would like to ask the minister what position the millers will be in under this law? Speaking for my own city of Chatham, I can say that the millers there take every precaution to get. the best seed to dispose of among the farmers. And the same is true of the seed merchants. It seems to me that the effect of this Bill will be to drive a great many dealers out of business and so put the farmers at a disadvantage.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Anybody who sells seed for seed purposes will come under the operation of the Bill whether he is a miller, a dealer, a farmer or anything else-except the farmer who sells on his own premises to his neighbour. My hon. friend (Mr. Clements) describes in eulogistic terms the seedsmen and millers of his district and I have no doubt lie describes them truly. These people need not fear the Bill; on the contrary it is a Bill that will protect them from dishonest competition.


Herbert Sylvester Clements: It seems to me that the millers will be compelled to go out of the selling of wheat, oats and things of that kind as seed. Yet, I am sure hon. members will agree with me that millers throughout the country are most anxious to furnish the farmers with the best seed possible and that they do it.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: If they are selling seed that will render them liable to prosecution, they are selling seed that it is not desirable that the farmers should buy.


Haughton Lennox: I would call the hon. minister's attention to a rather different phase of subsection 2 from that we have been discussing. The argument has been directed to the idea that the farmers are getting too much indulgence under this section. On the other hand, I think they are not getting the protection they are entitled to. It is true that there is a provision which may, to some extent, facilitate the disposal of their grain by the farmers-But when we turn to section 7, it appears to me-and I would ask the minister to take it into his consideration before we pass that section finally-that, the farmer should have the protection that is thrown about him under subsection 2 not only as regards selling to a neighbouring farmer, but in all cases. In one case, he is selling his grain not knowing to what purpose it will be diverted, and in the other he is selling it knowing that it will be used for seed. To avoid the possibility of lawsuits and the complications that would follow, I submit, the subsection should be framed in such a way as to afford protection to the farmer in all cases of selling bis grain ; and should
throw on the dealer in seeds the onus of seeing that the grain is uot resold for seed until it is put in proper condition. That could be accomplished, perhaps, by the introduction of a very few words. I will read the section as I would like to see it, for the consideration of the minister :
The provisions contained in this section shall not apply to the sale of seed grown, sold and delivered by any farmer on his own premises, for seeding by the purchaser himself or to a dealer in seeds, unless the purchaser himself or the dealer in the seeds obtains from the seller at the time of the sale thereof a certificate that the seed is supplied to him subject to the provisions of this Act.
The proper course is to provide that dealers in seeds shall guarantee to the public that seeds purchased from them are in reasonable condition, and to leave the farmer absolutely free to sell his seed to a dealer in whatever condition it may he, because, the farmer has not facilities, pro; bably, to extract the various weed-seeds, and. in many instances is not aware of the fact that these objectionable seeds are present in tlie grain.


Mr. ARMSTRONG.: Would the minister say what would he the probable cost to a seedsman of the machinery necessary to clean all the seeds he has referred to? I cannot help thinking that if the machinery is expensive it will not only increase the cost of the seed to the farmer, but it will ' place the seed business in the control of a very few hands.	,


Sydney Arthur Fisher: The cost of the machinery to clean the seed would depend altogether upon its capacity as well as upon its effectiveness. Probably the largest seed dealers in Canada have machinery whicli would fulfil all the requirements of this Act, and sufficient to meet all the demands likely to j be made upon them. Such a machine would ; cost about $800 ; while for a small business, an ordinary fanning mill would do a: great deal, though it would not be completely effective, such a machine as can he got for $30 or $40. But the large seed merchants could get ail the machinery required in this country, for less than $1,000.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: Then I think the effort will be practically to force the cleaning of seeds and the sale of seeds, in our country, into the hands of a comparatively few. There are very few local seed merchants who would invest in machinery costing $800 for the purpose of cleaning the seed that will be sold in their community. While I think that many provisions in the Bill, are wise, there are others that I think are too sweeping. When you compel farmers to purchase only such seeds as have gone through the hands of the seed merchants, you may depend upon it they are going to pay a great deal more for their seeds.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: As a matter of fact, the seed merchants of Canada to-day are pretty well equipped with seed cleaning machinery, The seed merchants have practically all the machinery necessary to fulfil the requirements of this Act. An investment in a plant costing from $500 to $700 or $800 to enable a man to carry on a business of this kind, would be a very small charge ' upon the business. When it comes to the farmers themselves cleaning their ; seeds, they cannot do it ; therefore we provide machinery by which, under certain conditions and in certain circumstances, they can sell seeds if the purchaser chooses to buy from them.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: How many seed merchants have the necessary machinery V


Edward Cochrane: Is there one between Kingston and Toronto ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I am told by my officer who is familiar with the trade that there are fully fifteen seed merchants who have the full equipment.


John Barr: Is that for the whole Dominion ?


Mr. HENDERSON.: That is a big combine.
Mi-. FISHER. That would be for the whole Dominion, but most of them are located in the province of Ontario.


John Barr: What will Manitoba and the other provinces that have no machinery, of this kind do ? It is not likely to benefit the farmer, and that is the starting point. It seems to me dangerous legislation and is making a radical change.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: There are two or three seed merchants in the province of Manitoba who are thoroughly equipped, and one at any rate in the province of British Columbia who is well equipped ; and there are some others in Ontario further east.


Herbert Sylvester Clements: The point raised by my hon. friend from East Lambton (Mr. Armstrong) was exactly the point I wanted to bring to the notice of the minister. While I would compliment the minister upon his desire to pass useful legislation in this direction, I cannot see myself that it is going to benefit the farming community to any extent. It will certainly cause a great deal of trouble.


William Foster Cockshutt: So far as my experience goes, no machine has yet been devised that can thoroughly remove all the seeds named in the Bill, and that is the point I desire to draw to the attention of the minister. For instance, from alsike clover and timothy seed there is no machine yet devised that can remove false flax seed. So far as I am aware that has never been removed successfully by any machine.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: Now the minister rather intimated that seed merchants wilfully left in certain seeds that might be removed by machinery. I believe it is the endeavour of every honest merchant to remove every impure seed that it is possible for him to remove. But I want to point out that there are certain seeds mentioned in this Bill that cannot be removed by any machine ever yet designed. No machine can be designed, unless it has eyes that can take out those weed seeds that are the same size and weight as the pure seed. Wind won't do it, and sieves won't do it. Then what will do it ? Nothing bpt eyes, and we have no machine yet. that has eyes and that will take out these seeds of similar weight and similar size, and only different colour, from the sample. The effect of the Bill will be to put the business into a few hands, to raise immensely to the farmers of this country both the price of the seed grain and the seed grasses ; and both of these, if they are cheap, constitute an element of wealth that no farmer can afford to ignore. My belief is that clover seed at $8 or $10 a bushel is quite high enough ; if you put it up to $12 or $14 a bushel you are going to do great harm to agriculture in this country. I submit it is not well to pass too drastic a measure. I trust tlie minister will allow that clause to stand until he has had an opportunity to look into it and to make it more workable.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I would point out to my hon. friend that I did not say that weed seeds would be entirely removed; I said that machinery was in existence which could conform to the provisions of this Act. The provisions of this Act do not require absolute purity, they come as closely to it as we can make them under the circumstances prevailing in the trade. We do not expect to get absolute purity, we would be very glad to do so, but that is likely to be impossible. 1 may say that the Bill has been considerably modified so as to make it less stringent than the Bill of last session. But I desire to say that if the Bill is not passed as stringent as it is here framed, it will be practically useless in improving the seed trade in this country ; and I am not prepared to take the responsibility of leaving the seed trade any longer without control.


Mr. A. A. WRIGHT.: I am inclined to think that if the seed trade got into fewer hands it would be better for the farmers of this country, because the dealers would be able to get a better class of seed and sell it cheaper than they would otherwise. Allow me to give you one illustration from my own riding. A gentleman from the state of New York came there and went into the seed business. When he was purchasing seed he got a list of all the farmers who grew good seed. He had an agent whom he sent round to inspect every field before the crop was harvested, so that lie

might know exactly what foul seed of any kind was growing in that field. When he found farmers who had the very best quality of seed and the cleanest fields, it was from them he purchased his seed. The consequence was that farmers gradually began to grow a better class of seed. But unfortunately the duty imposed by the United States government on seeds going into that country was so high that he could not export any from Canada. I think, therefore, that if this Bill becomes law we will eventually have not only better seed, but cheaper seed, by reason of the inspection of seeds in the fields where they are growing.


Edward Cochrane: What kind of seed is it that the hon. gentleman refers to?


Aaron Abel Wright: Peas.


Edward Cochrane: It is a great trouble to clean peas I am sure. You must have time. An ordinary fanning mill would take all the foul seeds out of peas.


Charles Marcil: -Section 3 stands :
On section 4,
4. No person shall sell, or offer, expose or have in his possession for sale, any seeds of timothy, red clover, alsike, or any mixture containing the said seeds, in or from any receptacle, package, sack or bag upon which is marked ' No. 1 ' or any other designation which represents such seeds as of first quality, unless they are free from the seeds of weeds named in section 3 of this Act, and are also free form the seeds of Whi-te Cockle, (Lychnis vespertina, (Sibth.) ; Night-Flowering Catch-fly, (Silene noctiflora, L.) ; False Flak, (CameJinB. satliva, Cirautx.); Oanad|a Thistle, (Onieus anvensds, HoffmO ; Ox-eye, Daisy, (Chrysanthemum Leucanthemum, L.) ; Curled Dock. (Rumex Crispus, L.) ; Blue Weed, (Eehium ivulgaife, iL.) ; Ri-bg-ras-si: (Plantago lanceolata, L.) ; Chicory, (Cichorium Intybus, L.), and contain out of every one hundred seeds not less than ninety-nine seeds of the kind or kinds represented, or seeds of other useful and harmless grasses and clovers, of which ninety-nine seeds must be germinable.


Haughton Lennox: I would call the bon. minister's attention to this in connection with the next section. Probably we could deal with it when we come to section 5, but we might as well understand bow it works out now. It is provided that out of every one hundred seeds ninety-nine shall be of the kind or kinds proposed to be sold. Then, section 5 provides :
The .Governor in Council may make regulations determining the maximum proportion of seeds of the. weeds named in sections 3 and 4 of this Act, that may he tolerated in any seeds without affecting their character as being within the meaning of the -said sections free from the seeds of the said weeds.
I do not see how these two sections can possibly work out together. There is a definite provision in section 4 that out of
every hundred seeds ninety-nine must be of the character proposed to be sold. If that is absolute then the provision contained in section 5 can have no application ; and it is very important, I should think,
! that there should be some provision of that | character because it is almost impossible that i the growers of seeds should come up to the provision which is here contained, if I understand these two sections aright.
- Mr. FISHER. In reply to my hon. friend I will say that section 4 is absolute. Of every one hundred seeds there must be ninety-nine of the kind which is purported to be sold. But, the regulations winch may be passed under section 5 could not contravene that in any way whatever. That would refer to the percentage of seeds which might be allowed where the Act requires that the sample must lie free from seeds, but that would in no way override the necessity of ninety-nine seeds out of a hun-\ dred being true to the name of. the sample.


Haughton Lennox: Does the hon. minister see the effect of that ? Is it possible to work that out in the. way the bon. minister suggests ? It is provided that out of every one hundred seeds there shall be ninety-nine of the character that is purported to be sold ; that is that out of oue hundred seeds in the whole package there shall be ninety-nine seeds of the character represented to be sold. Then w^bat happens under section 5 ? That only allows one per cent of objectionable seeds. That only leaves oue per cent of all those w7eed seeds enumerated in section 3 and again added to in section 4, which may be represented in these seeds. Then, how can it be worked out ? The Governor in Council may determine what proportion of objectionable seeds shall be iu a package without militating against the provisions of the Act. That-I say it with all due respect-is not good sense upon the face of it.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I do not agree with my hon. friend. If my hon. friend will look at .section 6 he will see that there is a provision in that section also for a greater proportion than five to one thousand of the seeds sold as being permissible even though the Act may say that no weed seeds shall be present. Now, the regulations under section 5 may go as high as ten per thousand permissible and still not interfere with the provision of one per cent in section 4, but they may go a great deal less than ten per thousand. They may by regulation be placed at only two or three per thousand and that would not contravene or interfere with the one per cent which may under section 4 be existent. But section 4 requires absolutely that there shall be ninety-nine per cent of the seed which is purported to be sold ; that is absolute and no regulation under section 5 can go beyond that or allow more than one per cent,

but it might allow mnoli less than the one per cent and still be within the provision of the Act.


Haughton Lennox: Which is only making it a little more absurd than I thought it was. That is all the difference.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I cannot see it.


Haughton Lennox: It comes down to this, according to the hon. minister and according to the section, that the utmost, of foul seed that can be contained in the package is one per cent, but after providing for that condition of things and after the admission, extracted by the hon. member for Brantford (Mr. Cockshutt) that as to certain seeds it is impossible to extract them, we have this position of things that the most that can possibly be contained in a package is one per cent of foul seeds. Then we have sections 5 and 6 containing this additional provision that the Governor in Council may make regulations by which the one per cent of foul seeds shall not be permitted. What condition of things will we have in regard to the farmer who is growing seeds ? 1 am not solicitous about other parties because I think they caq protect themselves, but we have this condition as regards the farmers that we have them reduced to the absolute necessity of having ninety-nine per cent of the kind of seeds that are purported to be sold, with the additional burden, cast upon them, that the Governor in Council may make a regulation that even that door of one per cent of escape may be closed and it may be made a fraction of one per cent, if it was unreasonable before, I think it is much more unreasonable by reason of these provisions contained in sections 5 and (3.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I do not think my hon. friend understands the section.


Edward Cochrane: That is the trouble.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Yes, that is the trouble, but at the same tim.e as the trouble is there, I will try to explain it. Under section 4 there are two conditions which are requisite before a sample of seeds can be marked No. 1. The first is that the seeds are free from the seeds of certain weeds. Does my hon. friend understand that ?


Haughton Lennox: Y'es.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: First, that they are free from the seeds of the weeds named. That is the first condition. The. second condition is that there shall be at least ninety-nine seeds in every one hundred of the seed *which is purported to be sold. Now, in regard to the first condition, the Governor in Council may make regulations as to what percentage, if I may call it so, or fraction of a percentage may be permitted and the sample still be considered to be free from these weed seeds. That would probably Mr. FISHER.
be, surely be in this case, far less than one per cent permissible.


Haughton Lennox: Exactly, it must be.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Then in regard to the second contention of its being necessary that 99 seeds out of 100 should be the seed's purporting to be sold, section 5 does not apply to that at all.	.


Haughton Lennox: No, I know that.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Very well then, as far as the first part of it is concerned, it would state what number of seeds per thousand were allowed to be present without being considered to be present. That may sound like an anomaly, that they are present but yet are not to be considered present ; but that is in deference to what my hon. friend from Brantford (Mr. Cockshutt) has pointed out-and I was well aware of it-that we do not expect absolute perfection, we do not expect to get absolute freedom from all weed seeds, but we do want to get just as little as the conditions of the trade, the perfection of machinery and circumstances will permit. We have, therefore, inserted section 5 for the purpose of making a slight allowance for human fallability and weakness, or for the weakness of machinery, if you choose to put it in that way. I think my hon. friend will now understand the necessity of the two sections.


Haughton Lennox: I think I understand the minister. It is just this, that there must be 99 seeds out of each 100 which are seeds of the variety purporting to be sold. There may be one foul seed in 100, but that possibility does not become absolute, because the Governor in Council may cut that down just as much as they like.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: My hon. friend does not go quite far enough. What he says is true of the seeds named, but there might be other seeds which are not named, and still there must not be more than one per cent of weed seeds.


Haughton Lennox: The minister says that there is only one per cent of margin. In any case there must be 99 per cent of pure seed ; if there are other seeds that are not named here, there is still only one per cent to work on. I would ask the minister if he thinks it is wise to make so drastic a provision in reference to this matter, and to throw such a serious onus on the people who raise and sell seeds ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: My hon. .friend again misses one point: this is optional. A man need not put ' No. 1 ' on a package. This is a clause which provides, that if a package of seeds is sold as No. 1, that is, as the best quality, it must live up to this clause. If a man is selling seed that he knows is not No. 1, he should not put No. 1 on his seed.


Haughton Lennox: That is what I wanted to get at. I quite admit that it is optional,

but vliat I want to ensure is that the sale of what may be safely branded as No. 1 seed shall not be confined to the hands of half a dozen men. This Act Is driving out of the market the large class of producers, and is confining the market to the hands of the half dozen men who have this superior machinery, and when you limit it so that the requirement is as near perfection as you can get-as near perfection as the late Ontario government, ' almost perfection '- you are driving out the producers and the honest, hard working farmer, and creating a monopoly in the hands of a few, which thing is what I want to avoid.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I am rather disposed to take straight issue with the hon. gentleman. If it is necessary that the farmer, in order to get good seed, should have to get it from only a few people. I think that is better for the farmer than to get bad seed from a lot of people. I am prepared to pass a law so drastic that if people will not live up to the law and give the farmers what they profess to be selling to them, they shall he driven out of business. That is the whole purpose of the law. As I said, to begin with, if this Rill did not tread upon the toes of any one in the seed business, there would not be any raison d'etre for the Bill at all.


George Eulas Foster: What ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Does my hon. friend dispute that ? Perhaps he wants a translation.


Edward Cochrane: You ought to talk so that people will understand you.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: The hon. gentleman understands ; he read some French the other day.


George Eulas Foster: I did not recognize the French.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: The hon. gentleman's ear and pronunciation are so perfect in that language that I bow to his superior knowledge. We had an evidence of it the other day.


David Henderson: Humbug.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I say frankly that I do not want seed to be sold as No. 1 which will not live up to the provisions of this section. I am prepared to advocate that the Bill should be so drastic that seed cannot be sold to farmers in Canada marked as ; No. 1 ' and said to be of the highest quality, unless it lives up to the provisions of this section. As a matter of fact, we have had a large number of samples of seed tested, and I have here a statement of what was collected last year. We collected 450 samples through the country, and of the timothy seed 49 per cent of the samples lived up to the provisions of this section; of alsike seed, 17 per cent lived up to the provisions of the section ; and of red clover, 21 per cent, and. these were samples of seed that were taken largely in the parts of Canada where avowedly poor seed is sold. When we come to
take the samples of seed sent to us by reliable and responsible merchants, we find that there were 196 samples received. Of the samples of timothy 76 per cent were up to this standard ; alsike, 54 per cent: and of red clover, 63 per cent, showing that if men try to carry on their business properly and rightly, there is no difficulty for them to be able to live up to the provisions of this section. It can be done if people will only try to do it, and if they will not try to do it, it is the object of this Bill to make them do it.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: Will the minister tell us what number of firms in western Ontario have the necessary machinery for cleaning the seeds-machinery which costs over $800 ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I would not like to mention the names of the firms ; to do it would look a little too much like advertising. I may say that a considerable number of the leading seed merchants in Ontario have the machinery.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: As there are only fifteen in the Dominion, would it do any harm to name them all ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I do not think it would be wise to name individual firms.


Air. SCHAFFNER.: It seems to me that one of the great difficulties in the discussion of this Bill is the manner in which the Bill is drawn. If I understand it correctly, the intention of section 4 is that there is to be not more than one seed out of 100 that is not the right kind of seed. If that is the manner in which this is to he judged, I see absolutely no use of clause 5, which says the Governor in Council may determine how many poor seeds may be tolerated. It says that distinctly-
The Governor in Council may make regulations determining the maximum proportion of seeds of the weeds named in sections 3 and 4 of this Act.
I understood the minister to say that it did not mean the seeds named in section 3, but it might mean some other seed. I think this Bill is not properly drawn for presentation to this House.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I am sorry to hear the hon. gentleman's opinion on such a subject. I venture to say that the Bill is drawn by the best draftsmen of Bills that are available for this House or this country. I do not pretend myself to draft Bills. They are drawn by the Department of Justice, on the instruction we give as to what is required. But I think I have given a complete explanation of the point at issue, and have shown that clause 5 does not apply at all to the percentage of foreign seeds, in what my hon. friend has quoted in section 4.


Edward Cochrane: Wliat do you 'want It in for ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Because it applies to another portion of section 4. As I stated a few minutes ago, there are two conditions in clause 4, and clause 5 regulates or controls to a certain extent the first condition, but does not interfere in any way with the second condition. My hon. friend who spoke a few minutes ago insists that it does. I cannot help it if he does not understand it.


Edward Cochrane: As a plain, practical farmer, I wish to say that there is the trouble. The minister says he is pleading for the poor farmer. Well, I am one of them.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: My hon. friend is not a poor farmer.


Edward Cochrane: I made my Jiving as a farmer, which you never did. If the hon. gentleman does not understand farming better than he does this Bill, he would be in a very humble position in life if he tried to make his living by it. He tells the farmers that they can understand this Bill thoroughly. If it is so plain, how is it that the Minister of Agriculture, with all his wisdom, cannot explain it so that the lawyers of this House can understand it ? What position will the poor farmer be in w7hen he goes before a court? I want to impress this on the hon. gentleman's mind- because it requires a great deal to impress a fact on the mind of a gentleman who is so conceited that he thinks he knows it all- that this Bill is so complicated that with all his explanations he cannot bring it down to the comprehension of the lawyers of this House. I wonder if the Minister of Justice understands the Bill that he has drafted.


William Foster Cockshutt: I want to draw attention to the word ' free ' used in clause 4. I understood the hon. minister to say, when discussing clause 3, that he did not expect absolute purity; but the word ' free ' as used in clause 4, is not a comparative term; it is absolute, so that if there is one impure seed in a bushel it cannot be said to be free. That is an impossibility. There must be absolute purity from all the seeds enumerated in clause 3, and also those named in clause 4.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: No, no. That is just why I want clause 5, to which another hon. gentleman objects so much, so that we may make a regulation to provide that absolute freedom to a certain extent as it may be found necessary.
On section 7-exemptions from the Act,


Mr. CHISHOLM.: Why should the provision for cleaning seeds be confined to merchants ? It seems to me that the farmers should be included. A cleaning machine costing $800 might be purchased and taken


Sydney Arthur Fisher: around from farmer to farmer in the same way as is done with a threshing machine.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: If the seeds were cleaned in the way my hon. friend suggests, by the farmers themselves, they would not be sold at all until after they were cleaned; and then they would not require to be exempted.


Thomas Chisholm: If the Minister of Agriculture took steps to educate the farmers as to the different kinds of seeds, he might encourage them to prevent the spread of noxious weeds without embarrassing them so much. If he had sample cases prepared, such as I think he has already prepared, with noxious seeds contained in small bottles, properly labelled, and if every seed merchant were compelled to have one of these cases on exhibition at the place where he sold seeds, and at the same time have a bottle containing the seeds he was selling absolutely free from impurities, so that the farmers could see them, he might in that way do a great deal to educate them without hampering them, and prevent a great deal of litigation.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I am glad to hear the suggestion of my hon. friend. We have been trying to do that kind of work. We have had prepared a cardboard box containing samples of the weed seeds known in the country and are distributing those boxes to those who deal in seeds and the agricultural organizations throughout the country. That is one of the educational factors that we have been making use of in order to instruct the farmers so that they may be able to examine what they buy. We are not restricting our efforts to educate the farmers but on the contrary are increasing them.


William Foster Cockshutt: Are the provisions in clause 7 intended to apply to seed sold for export ? There are many noxious weeds which thrive in a climate such as ours, but might not mature in Great Britain, France or Germany, and seeds containing the seeds of such weeds might not be prejudiced thereby to anything like the same extent in those countries as in Canada. Will the provisions of this Bill apply to such seeds when sold for export ? The bulk of the seed trade in Ontario is with foreign countries, and it is not desirable that we should in any way restrict those markets.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Section G provides that no person shall sell or offer or have in his possession for sale for the purpose of seeding in Canada-Any seeds of timothy, &c.
I do not think that this restriction is in any of the other sections, but I might say that, as a matter of fact, our seed merchants export almost entirely the highest quality of seed. That is one of the evils we have to contend with, namely, that the best quality is exported and the inferior sold in Canada. The best quality is exported to countries where they have just such legislation as

we are now proposing. Consequently these countries have been able to get better seeds than our own farmers can procure. The Bill applies to all seeds held for sale in Canada, whether intended for export or not. If it did not, we would be constantly hampered in the enforcement of the law by having to decide whether the seed was intended or not for export.


William Foster Cockshutt: What the hon. minister says may be true as regards European markets, but the United States are prepared to buy all grades of seeds. They will not pay the same prices, but will buy any seeds at* a price. It appears to me important that this Bill should only apply to seeds sold retail for use in Canada. Why should we lessen the value of goods which we send to a foreign country ? If you will prevent dealers from buying certain seed even for export, you will make a marketable commodity a dead stock in the hands of the growers or merchants. I do not think this Bill should apply to seeds intended for export. We can safely let the foreign countries look after their own interests.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I have no desire to protect foreign countries, but the difficulty of carrying out this measure would be very much greater if -we were to allow seed to be held in this country, ostensibly for export. of a quality inferior to what is allowed to be sold in the country.


Aaron Abel Wright: I do not agree with the hon. member for Brantford (Mr. Cock-shutt). We should apply to seed for export the same test as to seed for use in the country. We should endeavour to gain the reputation of growing the best seed in the world, just as the growers in Germany of the sugar beet seed are reputed to grow seed that cannot be excelled. France has a similar reputation for cauliflower seed. When you want the best cauliflower seed, you must go to France. One word with reference to the fear expressed that this trade will go into the hands of a very few. As a matter of fact, the wholesale trade is limited to a very few and that is a good thing. How does this particular trade work' A wholesale firm sends out a traveller to the retail dealers in Renfrew. He tells these dealers that if he can sell a sufficient quantity to send a carload to the town of Renfrew, whence it could be distributed to the various other places, he will do it on more favourable terms. The freight is a very important factor. If the retailer can buy at wholesale prices every kind of seed he* wants and have it delivered cheaply at his own door, he will not fail to do so because he would then be able to undersell everybody else in his own vicinity.


Mr. MILLER.: If the Bill should pass in its present shape, it may lead to some confusion. and some guiltless persons may possibly suffer. The main object of the Bill is to protect the farmer who desires to keep his farm clean and to purchase seed free from noxious weeds. I would suggest that in every case the purchaser should be entitled to a certificate from the seller to the effect that the seller has sold a certain quantity of a certain seed to the purchaser for seed purposes and has sold it, knowing that he is incurring all the responsibility under this Act. We should provide further that any seed sold without such certificate shall be deemed to have been sold for other than seeding purposes. That would meet the many objections raised. The objection that this Bill would drive the trade into the hands of the large dealers does not apply. As a fact the majority of seed merchants purchase their seeds from the wholesale seed merchants who have the appliances for cleaning.
Again, if we say that, in order that the farmer may be protected by the provision of the Bill, the seed merchant in the country store will suffer, then, I say, so let it be; it is a case of the greatest good to the greatest number. We might apply the same argument and say :	We will allow every
person to sell drugs : We will allow every person to practice medicine. But we do not apply the argument in that way. There is another thing that, in my opinion, might be provided for by the Act and is not. I have known many cases of farmers purchasing in the spring what they believed to be turnip seed, but what they found out too late to be rape seed. It seems to me that where that is done there must have been not merely negligence but deliberate fraud.
If there is any way of punishing the man who is guilty of selling for turnip seed something that is utterly worthless for the purpose for which it is purchased, it would be well, I think, to cover the case in this Bill. There is another point which may not properly come under this Bill as it is at present, but which could easily be allowed for by some little change in the title and might be provided for in a special section.
I would suggest that there should be a provision in the Bill that the man owning or having under his control a threshing machine should be obliged, before he leaves the premises of one farmer to go to those of another, to thoroughly clean his separator.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I sympathize very much with the remarks of my hon. friend (Mr. Miller) in many of the points he has raised.
1 may tell him frankly, that, in consequence of the opposition to the details of the Bill,
I have thought it best to take one step at a time. I hope the day will come, and not very long hence, when we shall be able to go further than is provided for in this Bill, but I suppose it will be impossible, at one fell swoop to effect all the reforms in the seed trade that we would like to see, parti-_ - cularly as that trade has existed hitherto'

without control or supervision. I hope that, in the future, provisions shall be made, such as my hon. friend speaks of, but at present, I fear, we can hardly go as far as he would like. As to his first suggestion concerning a certificate accompanying every sale of seed, under the provisions of the Act, there is a subclause in section 3 providing that a certificate can be given that the provisions of the Act do not apply, but, in every other respect all the processes of the Act shall apply to every sale without a certificate required or given.


John Graham Haggart: Is any law similar to tliis in force in any country so far as the minister knows, and if so, does it work well ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I cannot say that exactly similar provisions are in force in any country that 1 know of. In certain European countries including Austria-Hungary and Switzerland, they had a system called a guarantee system which is provided for by law and which seems to work fairly well. But I hardly thought the condition of the trade here such that we could safely introduce that system. I have taken most of the provisions of this law from laws somewhat similar in their nature-but dealing with other subjects-already in force in Canada. I have taken some of the provisions from the Fruit Marks Act, and of the General Inspection Act.


John Graham Haggart: I understood that they had a law on this subject in Germany and also in Great Britain, and I wondered how they compared with this and whether they were successful or not.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: There are laws on this subject in European countries much more drastic than this. When I first drew this Bill, a couple of years ago, I was much closer to those models than I am in the Bill as now presented. I have been modifying in the direction of leniency, and as I said to my hon. friend (Mr. Miller), I think that it is necessary to proceed a step at a time.
I trust that with the improvement in the trade which, I am sure, will result from the passage of this law, we shall be able to go further as the trade can stand it.
On section 8,


Mr. MACDONELL.: I would like to ask the minister if it is the intention that a person shall be punishable only when he has violated the provisions of sections of 3, 4 and 5-all of them ? That is the way it is drawn.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I do not think my hon. friend (Mr. Macdonell) has read the section. It says :
Every person who, by himself or through the agency of another person violates any of the provisions of sections 3, 4 and 5

*
He is punishable if he violates any of the provisions. There is a misprint in my copy of the Act which 1 should like to correct. :I move that in line 3 or of section 8, the figure 5 be struck out and the figure 6 substituted. Section 5 is not a provision of the Act that can be violated, though section G is


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Mr. macdonell. i would stni urge upon the minister the point that the person should be liable if he violated any one of the previous sections-3, 4 or 5. The Act, as drawn, makes these sections cumulative, it brackets the three of them, and says that a man must offend against the provisions of all three sections in order to be liable to indictment. If he offends against any one section, it should be sufficient. 1 submit the matter as a legal question, and the word ' or ' should be substituted for the word ' and.'
Sydney Arthur Fisher: I am not prepared to set up my own opinion against the legal opinion of my hon. friend (Mr. Macdonell), who is a lawyer of high standing. But I do not read it in that way, and I would be disposed to risk the enforcement of the Act with the words as they are in the section.


William Foster Cockshutt: The line seems to be rather heavy. I understand that these costs may be levied upon every package. That is unnecessarily severe. If it is pointed out to him that one of these packages is wrong and he can fall back on the parties from whom he got it, why, of course, he will do it. But to fine him on the whole fifty7 packages when he is only selling from one seems to be rather severe. Further, I cannot ascertain where the responsibility of the retailer begins and the responsibility of the wholesaler ends. I do not find in this clause a point at which it may be said that the wholesaler is relieved and the retailer becomes responsible. And when the retailer becomes responsible, it does not appear that he is ever relieved so long as the result of that crop is unknown. I would ask whether he is relieved before or after the crop has been reaped ? If it is open for a man to come back six months afterwards and say: That seed II got from you is not pure seed- of which there is no evidence that he did get it, he only says so-there is a great diliiculty7. Now, as a dealer, I might buy in the early part of the season from a man in Toronto, later in the season I would buy7, say7, from a man in Hamilton, and I might also buy from Chicago. It would be impossible for me to tell which of these three lots I sold from to an individual who might complain at the end of the season. Therefore, the responsibility rests upon the seller, and it is not clear where it begins and where it ends.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: In the first place, in a case where there is no proof. I do not think thef


Sydney Arthur Fisher: person accused would have very much to fear, because without proof he cannot be condemned. In the second place, in regard to the retailer and the wholesaler, the case would be In regard to a certain sale, whoever made that sale would be responsible. The provisions of subsections 2 and 3 of this section enable a person who has made a sale to escape responsibility of that sale under certain conditions which are here detailed, one of which is that it was a seed package the seal of which had not been broken. The other is that he must prove to the satisfaction of the court that he had not tampered with the seed, and that it was really in the condition in which he obtained it, and that he had sold it in good faith. He would have to prove this to relieve himself from responsibility. The proof on which he would be relieved of responsibility would no doubt serve in a court of law against the person who sold it to him. 'So far as the protection of the wholesaler who sells to the retailer is concerned, the wholesaler would have no responsibility if the retailer sold again, because the last purchase would be the only purchase on which a case could be founded, unless under the circumstances to which I have just referred. The hon. gentleman also spoke about a minimum penalty, that is to say, that if a person sold a large number of packages he might be unfairly mulcted in a considerable sum.
Now, if my hon. friend will study the section carefully, he will see that while there is a maximum limit there is no minimum limit. In the amount to be imposed on him for each package, the magistrate or the court, I suppose, who imposed the fine would take all the circumstances into consideration. If he judged that a small amount would suffice to punish him and to indicate that he had done wrong, the amount placed on the sale of each individual package would be so nominal that the whole amount he would have to pay would be very small.


John Barr: Suppose a farmer purchases from a retailer and he finds tluft the seed is not good and proceeds against the retailer. But the retailer gets out of it on the ground that he purchased the seed from a wholesale dealer or some other person ; then would the farmer have to proceed against the wholesale dealer ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I think subsection 3 of this Act would meet such circumstances :
Every magistrate who has disposed of any case under 'the foregoing subsection shall, within one month from the date of his judgment therein, send to the Minister of Agriculture a report of the case.
I think it will then be the duty of the department to take up the case and proceed. Although that is not expressly stated, I think it is implied that such a case as the hon. gentleman indicates would be one that the department might properly take up.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Is that the object for which a report is to be made ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Yes.


Mr. A. MARTIN.: I think the minister would be assuming a grave duty in deciding whether he should take it up or not. This section makes it optional for the Depart-msnt of Agriculture to interfere in the case.
I may say that I think the intention of the minister in drawing this Bill is a good one. But I regret that we have not sufficient information before us as to how similar Acts work in other countries to enable us to judge of the probable effect of this one. I think we should proceed very slowly on such information as we can get. I think the committee ought to be placed in possession of an abstract of the legislation passed in other countries on this subject, that would enable us to come to a conclusion as to whether we should pass this measure in its present form or not. If there is a law on the statutes of the United States, as I think the Minister of Agriculture said there was, we ought to be placed* iu possession of it. 'I think the Bill will largely increase the price of seeds to farmers, and I think that a large majority of farmers, after purchasing their seeds, will hesitate very much before going into court and taking the chance of getting a remedy for the sale of impure seeds to them.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I think my hon. friend (Mr. A. Martin) does not quite give the farmers the credit which is due them for defending themselves. We have a number of laws on the statute-book to protect trade in various ways. We have the General Inspection Act, we have the Act which deals with commercial fertilizers and a number of other Acts, all of which are framed for the purpose of protecting the individual in his trade. This is anoher Act of the same character. The point my hon. friend brought out in regard to the government, or the department, proceeding and taking up cases is one in regard to which I do not agree with him. 1 do not think it ought to he imperative under the Act, because circumstances vary so much that it would be necessarily left in the discretion of the minister of the department as to what should be proceeded with and as to what should not be proceeded with. That is the invariable rule in all cases that come under the Inspection Acts, and in this case I think it would be absolutely necessary as in the other cases.


Alexander Martin: I think it would not be a good feature of the Bill that it should be left in the hands of the Department of Agriculture to determine whether the purchaser shall have any remedy or not. It might lead to some very improper decisions by the Minister of Agriculture and some farmers might suffer while some others might get the benefit. Information in reference to the working of similar enact-



meats in other countries is wanting. The hon. minister did not enlighten the committee in this respect. It is very well to protect the farmers, but I am afraid this is a Bill for the lawyers to fight over. I would gladly support an effective and workable Bill, but this one is full of difficulties. The committee should have better information in reference to what has been done in other and older countries.


Mr. FIS  HER@: Under any circumstances and in any case the department or any in-jdividual could proceed. It is an offence against the law. The Bill does not limit the prosecution to the person who suffers.
At six o'clock, committee took recess.
After Eecess.
Committee resumed at eight o'clock.


George Eulas Foster: What is the object of the 3rd subsection of section 8 ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: The object of the third subsection of section 8 is to provide in case the person accused of selling fraudulently has proved that he was not himself responsible for the condition of the seeds, then an approach may be made to the Minister of Agriculture so that if it is thought necessary or advisable, departmental action can be taken for the carrying on of the prosecution. If my kon. friend will read the section just preceding he will see under what conditions and circumstances the seller can clear himself of a charge of breach of the Act. When he has done so some one else is evidently guilty and section 3 provides that the department may be notified of the condition of affairs, may take it into consideration and if it is thought advisable may institute a prosecution against the party who is guilty.


George Eulas Foster: Not against this person.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: No, against the person who is guilty.


George Eulas Foster: They may commence a new prosecution.


Thomas Chisholm: Would the Minister of Agriculture explain to us what would be done in a case where a retail merchant had bought seed in rui unbroken package, had sold it and it was subsequently found that the seed had originally been supplied to the retail merchant from a wholesale merchant in a foreign country. How could the man be punished ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: We could not do anything.


Alexander Martin: In this case the retailer is summoned and brought before the court by the farmer, but when the retailer proves that he is innocent but that the wholesaler from whom he has bought the Mr. A. MARTIN.
seed is the guilty person what does the minister propose to do ? He proposes that the retailer who is innocent shall pay the costs, and what remedy has the retailer'? He has only to transmit that evidence to the Department of Agriculture, the Department of Agriculture may pigeon-hole the complaint after subjecting him to costs. In my opinion this is a Bill altogether in the interests of the wholesale dealers. When an action such as this section provides is brought against a retailer an opportunity should be given to him to proceed against the wholesaler without having to submit to the Department of Agriculture the question of whether or not he should be able to do so. Favouritism might be shown in such a case. The department might take action in the case of a retailer who is friendly to them and do nothing in the case of a retailer who was not. If the retailer is to be subjected to costs he should have an opportunity of proceeding against the wholesaler from whom he has bought.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: If my hon. friend reads the Act he will see there is nothing in it to prevent that either.


Alexander Martin: The section reads :
Nevertheless, if the accused proves to the magistrate before whom he is tried that' the package, sack, bag or receptacle containing the seed respecting which the complaint or information is laid, was purchased by him directly from a seed merchant domiciled in Canada, and was not opened, or the state of the seed was not altered, while it was in his possession, and he had no reason to believe that the seed did not comply with the provisions of this Act, he shall, upon disclosing the name of the person from whom he purchased the seed, and the place and date of the sale thereof, to him, not be liable beyond the costs of prosecution.
What is the next step ? Is there a provision here that the retailer shall fall back on the wholesaler ? No. It says :
Every magistrate who has disposed of any case under the foregoing subsection shall, within one mohth from the date of his judgment therein, send to the Minister of Agriculture a report of the case, giving the name of the accused, the name of -the- person who sold the seed to him, and the date and place of such sale.
That is all he has to do, and it is then for the Minister of Agriculture to say what is to be done. He may say : Well this man is obnoxious to us, he has mulcted him in costs, but there is no remedy for him. An-ctker person may he viewed with more friendly eyes by the Minister of Agriculture, who will say we will pi'oceed in this case and bring the wholesaler into court. I do not think that this power should be placed in the hands of the Minister of Agriculture or any other minister.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: My hon. friend has read the conclusive proof of what I just told him ; there is nothing in this Act to prevent the retailer himself proceeding against the

person who sold the goods. The magistrate is obliged to report the case to the Minister of Agriculture in case the minister should think it is a case in which proceedings should be taken, whether the retailer cares to do so or not. But the retailer has all the machinery of this Act to protect himself. There is nothing in the Act to prevent him from proceeding against the wholesaler.


Alexander Martin: There is nothing in the Act and that is the whole trouble. In place of allowing the farmer to have a judgment against the retailer and the retailer to fall 'back on the wholesaler as it should be in the Bill.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: It is so in the Bill. That is what this subsection means. I have informed tbe hon. gentleman and the House that it means that the magistrate shall report the case to the minister in case the minister thinks it necessary to proceed, but that does not debar the retailer from proceeding against the wholesaler. The retailer has at his disposal the whole machinery of the Act just as the farmer had against the retailer. I have stated that to the hon. gentleman and I cannot make it any clearer.


Alexander Martin: Well, I cannot make it very much clearer to the hon. minister. What my contention is, is this, that when the farmer brings a suit against the retailer, and the seed is proved to be faulty, he should be able to get a judgment against the retailer ; and if the retailer is aggrieved, let him get his remedy from the wholesaler.
I think that would be a great improvement on the Bill.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I think it would be unfair to the retailer, if he is able to supply the proof described in subsection 2, to have a judgment rendered against him, and I want to protect the retailer to that extent.


Alexander Martin: The Minister of Agriculture knows very well that the farmers of this country are not going to law against the wholesaler in Montreal or Toronto. Take the ease of a farmer in Prince Edward Island, who buys seed from a retail merchant and brings him into court and proves that the seed was not what it was represented to be. He cannot get judgment against the retailer because the retailer falls back on the wholesaler in Toronto. The Minister of Agriculture expects the farmer to proceed against the wholesaler


Sydney Arthur Fisher: No.


Alexander Martin: Or leave it to the Department of Agriculture.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: That would be a case in which it would be quite proper for the minister to take up the case and proceed against the wholesaler ; but at the same time there is nothing to debar the retailer 121
in Prince Edward Island from proceeding against the wholesaler himself.


Alexander Martin: It is a great objection, I think, to this Bill that the farmer, after bringing the suit against the retailer and proving his case, should then be compelled to go against the -wholesaler in a distant part of Canada.


Haughton Lennox: I ask the minister to explain clause 8. It is said that the fine need not exceed $5 for the first offence. It can therefore be up to $5, and that fine shall be in respect of each receptacle, package, sack or bag, and it may apply to a case where a man has it in his possession for sale, contrary to the said provision. I want the minister to say to the committee whether that will cover a case of this kind. A dealer gets a large quantity in bulk of any kind of seed and does it up into a thousand packages. Then it is discovered that he has that seed for sale, and that it has this improper admixture of noxious weeds in it. Is it contemplated by the minister that an information may be laid charging this man with having a thousand packages of a certain kind of seed for sale contrary to the provisions of the Act, and that he may be fined in respect of each of these packages to the extent of $5, so that there could be inflicted by a magistrate-a magistrate who has, perhaps, no great knowledge of law-a fine of $5,000, or in default of payment a term of one month's imprisonment.
Mr. FISHER, Yes, under the reading of the Act the extraordinary case which my hon. friend cites might occur ; but I would trust to common sense and judgment of a magistrate to deal with the case on its merits, and to put the fine on each individual package low enough not to make it such an outrageous and extraordinary fine. Were such a fine as my hon friend speaks of inflicted, I think it would be a proper case to take on appeal to a higher court ; so that the last resort would not be left in the hands of what my horn friend has described as an ignorant country magistrate.


Haughton Lennox: I do not propose to take the language of the hon. minister. I did not use the term * ignorant country magistrate.' The minister may have very good reasons for wishing to put it in that form.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: No, I thought that was what the hon. gentleman said.


Haughton Lennox: Allow me to say that the hon. minister is mistaken.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I beg the hon. gentleman's pardon.


Haughton Lennox: I said that it might be dealt w>th by a magistrate who had no great knowledge of law. I suppose that might happen with a magistrate, as it might with a Minister of the Crown. I submit to those

in this House who have a knowledge of law that the hon. minister is not right in suggesting that in the case it put there could not be a successful appeal to a higher court. There would not be ground for an appeal. The magistrate would not have gone beyond the limits of the evidence and would not have exceeded his jurisdiction. If there 'S any such rule of law as that a judgment of a magistrate can he set aside when he acts within the limits laid down by the statute, it would be important to this House to be acquainted with that fact. As I understand it, there is no such rule of law. The case I put is clear, and I believe it is beyond question. It is not beyond the imagination of members of this House that there might be times when it would be very satisfactory to a magistrate to impose just such a fine, and it might happen that in the next adjoining municipality a person would be fined simply $5 or less for a single offence. There is liable to be great inequality and a great perversion of justice under this section. I do not say it with any desire to carp particularly about the Act, but I think it is well worth while for the minister, who,
.1 will imagine, is anxious to advance the interests of the farming class, to consider whether that would be a wise provision.


Charles Fitzpatrick: As the hon. gentleman says, it is quite true that inconvenience would result from the application of the law as stated here ; but the hon. gentleman is aware that cumulative penalties are not at all unknown to the profession. They have arisen under the Banking Act and under the Railway Act. I have a case in mind of a bank having been proceeded against for an enormous amount by cumulative penalty. How does my hon. friend propose to deal with a matter of this kind ? My attention has frequently been drawn to this difficulty, and up to the present time I have not found a remedy. If my hon. friend could suggest a remedy, I have no doubt the Minister of Agriculture would be glad to apply it.


George Eulas Foster: You might make a maximum aggregate fine.-


Charles Fitzpatrick: The fine is 55 for each particular offence. If a man sells one package, the fine of $5 would not be excessive, and if he sells one hundred, the principle is the same-he has committed one hundred offences.


George Eulas Foster: He may have made only one sale, and yet have a thousand packages for sale.


Charles Fitzpatrick: My hon. friend is quite right. What has been pointed out is a serious inconvenience ; the point is to find some remedy. It might not only be an inconvenience but something more. It might be an injustice.


Haughton Lennox: 


Haughton Lennox: My hon. friend the Minister of Justice has met this matter in the spirit I expected. It is not the case of a second offence


Charles Fitzpatrick: It is for cumulative offences.


Haughton Lennox: 
Charles Fitzpatrick: I quite appreciate the point and the remark made by my hon. friend the leader of the opposition. But there is this difficulty. You must not deal with a large offender on more favourable terms than with a small offender. The discussion has been profitable. I do not think that this Bill can leave the committee tonight, and I would like to deal with the point now made in such a way as not to create an unfortunate precedent.


Haughton Lennox: A person who had a thousand packages might not be a large dealer. A very small quantity might be divided into a thousand packages.


George Eulas Foster: I think the position taken by the Minister of Justice is very reasonable. But whichever way you have it, you will have some inconvenience. It would be a great hardship to have this cumulative penalty- put upon a dealer who really was not very guilty after all, and you might sometimes fail to mete out proper punishment to an inveterate breaker of the law. We might, however, take the more lenient course, and limit the maximum penalty ; and then if we found that the law did not work well, we could change it.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I am quite willing to let that section stand in order that I may look into the matter with my colleague. We thought that by making no limit to the smallness of the penalty, we were giving the opportunity for the imposition of a very light sentence, even when a large number of packages was concerned.
Section 8 is allowed to stand.
On section 9-who shall be prima facie liable.


Charles Fitzpatrick: This is to prevent the penalty being imposed on the clerk.
On section 10-examination of seeds, payment of samples, penalty for preventing examination.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Is it the intention to appoint an inspector ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Wre shall require a staff for the purpose of enforcing the Act.


Mr. TAYLOR.: This is the object-to give employment to a staff of hungry officials.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: The hon. gentleman makes a statement quite unwarranted, not in accord with the facts, and for which he has no foundation. The object of the Bill has *been explained, my hon. friend knows it well, and he deliberately undertakes to misrepresent it.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I rise to a point of order. I ask you, Mr. Chairman, whether it is in order for any member to say that another deliberately misrepresents the object of a Bill.


Charles Marcil: The minister probably went a little too far in using the term 1 deliberately,' but was no doubt provoked to use the term by the hon. member for Leeds who imputed an unworthy motive to the hon. minister, and was equally out of order.


George Eulas Foster: You are most accommodating, Mr. Chairman. On being called to give a decision upon one point of order, you take up another, and we are very much obliged for the double ruling.


Alexander Martin: I think the committee should have some information from the Minister as to the number of persons who are to be employed in carrying out this Act, what their duties will be and about how much the cost to the country will amount to.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: So far as I can see at present, there will be no necessary additions to the staff I now have.


An hon. MEMBER.: Then, the hon. minister must have too many now.


George Eulas Foster: The minister spoke of analysts-these, I suppose, he already has in the department ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Yes.


George Eulas Foster: Section 10 authorizes ' any person charged with the enforcement of this Act ' to enter premises under certain circumstances. That would seem to indicate that persons are to be appointed to enforce the Act; and it seems to me that if the Act is to be made efficient, the minister must employ people to enforce it. As my hon. friend from Prince Edward Island (Mr. Martin) suggests, this is a good time for the minister to take the committee into his confidence and tell us what the cost of enforcing the law will be, as measured by the salaries of the officials who will be necessary.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: For education and analytical work, I already 'have a staff


George Eulas Foster: A staff distributed over the country ?
Mr. FISHER, They travel part of the time carrying on educational and organization work, and part of the time they are in the office at Ottawa. There are four or five men under the head of this branch, Mr. Clark. I hope to utilize the services of these men where it is necessary for the department to intervene. They now collect specimens-where we do not get them voluntarily sent in-by purchasing in the open market. That kind of work has been going on for four years. It may be necessary to add one or two to that staff, not so much with a view to enforcing this Act, but to assist in the general work of the department, and, as part of that work, to supervise the enforcement of the Act. I think it will generally be enforced by those who are defrauded and who take advantage of the Act as a means of protecting themselves. In cases such as those covered by section 8, the department might intervene through one of its officials, whose duty it would be to put a case in the hands of the Department of Justice. And we shall be able, when we think it necessary, to employ the Dominion Police to enforce this law, the same as any law, in cases where the government finds it necessary to intervene. At present I have no intention of adding to the staff in the way of inspectors to go about the country and specially do the work of enforcing the law.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What would be the position of a purchaser of seeds who found the field in which the seed had been sown grown up with weeds, though he had not noticed the weed-seeds before sowing ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: He would be competent to proceed under the Act, but the difficulties of proof would be very great, unless he had taken the precaution to take a sample of the seed under the provisions of the Act soon after purchasing the seed. But auy farmer, knowing the Act to be in force, if he had any suspicion of the seed he had

bought, would take a sample, and then he would be armed for procedure if he found it necessary to act.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I am inclined to think the seedsman would order him out of his place of business if he tried to take a sample, because it would be throwing suspicion on the goods.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: The seller need not know anything about his taking a sample under the Act.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I thought the sample had to be taken in the place where the seed was bought.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Yes; or in the presence of two disinterested witnesses.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Pie could buy it, take it home and sample it there 1


Sydney Arthur Fisher: He would have to prove that it was the seed that he had got from the individual.


Edward Cochrane: In our section we grow a great deal of alsike. Some of it is exported to be used, as I understand, for colouring purposes. I have had as many as twenty bags of alsike seed in the barn at apce, but I could not say, when raising the seed, what it was to be used for. Yet, under this law, as I understand it, these inspectors could come in and take samples and put me to a lot of trouble.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Wherever the person engaged in enforcing the law has reason to suppose that seeds are kept contrary to the provisions of the Act, he would have a right to enter and make an examination.


William Foster Cockshutt: I would like to ask if there is no limit to the applications for samples ? Is the dealer obliged to furnish samples to every inspector and complainant who may demand it of him ? If they are allowed to come in and demand interminable samples, the Seedsmen will be much hampered, because the seed business is a rush trade, as every one knows. Further, I understand the minister to say that it is not necessary that the seller of the seed should be present when the sample is taken, or have any knowledge of it.- I would object to that. That was done in our town in one case and did serious harm to the dealer. Surely, the man who furnishes the sample should know what it is for. He should be able to keep a sample for liis own use, the same as he would of food products that are analyzed by the department. When the government analyst buys a pound of coffee or other article for examination, he always leaves a portion of it with the dealer, so that the latter can get it examined by another analyst if he desires. If these seeds can be taken without the knowledge or consent of the owner, I think you are doing a grievous Mr. FISHER.
i harm to the tradesman or grower behind ! his back.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: With regard to the idea that any one may go in and take samples, it is to be remembered that this section only gives authority to do so to the official who is charged with the enforcement of the Act. The department is not going to instruct a dozen officials to go and take samples of any individual's crop. An ordinary informer cannot take a sample under this provision, it is only the person charged with the enforcement of this Act that is allowed to enter on a man's premises by authority and take a sample, and clause 10 says he shall not be impeded in the exercise of his authority and his duties for that purpose.


Edward Cochrane: I asked about the case of a farmer who was raising alsike clover seed for export. Now I have had many bags of seed on my place at the same time, and under this clause I should think that a party would have power to come into my barn and inspect those bags whether I was willing or not, even though he might not know whether they -were going to be sold for seed or not. That would be a great hardship, and should not be allowed unless the official was notified that they were there for sale for seed. This clause allows an inspector to do that sort of thing.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: No doubt the man charged with the enforcement of the Act would have such power, and if the seed is likely to be sold for seeding purposes I think a government official should have that power, as he has in many other cases. He is a government inspector for that purpose, and is empowered to enter into premises where he believes any article is being held for seed purposes contrary to law. He will have that power under this Act. I would not like to say that we should restrict that power of a government official in the exercise of his functions.


George Eulas Foster: But that seems to be an extraordinary power. I do not think an official should have that power in reference to all seeds in respect to which no accusation or charge has been made. But my hon. friend here is simply the possessor of a lot of grain that he has raised and stored in his bam or 'his granary. There is no question about selling the seed for seed purposes or anything of the kind ; and without his being charged with any impropriety, you say that a certain official may enter his premises whenever he chooses and make an inspection of his grain, and if he is impeded by the owner the latter renders himself liable to a line of $500. It seems to me that is going too far, and that before your enforcer of the law can enter any premises it must ue premises in which it is supposed that there is seed out of which sales have been made for seed purposes. But this clause goes much further. Any granary, chamber, receptacle of
A

any kind in any part of the country whose owner is not selling seeds for seed purposes or anything of the kind, may be opened ar- i bitrarily by this official, and if the owner, bvho has a right in his own possession, obstructs the official he renders himself liable under the law. I think that should only take place where there is a seed about which there is a question of illegal selling for seed purposes.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: This clause is exactly similar to the clause in the General Inspection Act, in the Inland Revenue Act and also in the Customs Act. Customs officers have far greater powers than are given here.


Edward Cochrane: I do not think the case here is at all parallel to a case under the Customs or Inland Revenue Acts, because in these latter cases a man is defrauding the revenue.
I am not defrauding anybody, so far as I am concerned. I raise that grain myself. I am not responsible under this Act for what I do with it. I am not liable for what I do with alsike clover or anything else I have in my possession. Yet an official of the government can come into my premises whenever he sees fit and inspect my wheat; he can take a sample of wheat, or timothy with foul seed in it, as there very often is, and it is nobody's business so long as I keep it in my granary and do not sell. I do not think any government official should be allowed to come on my premises and inspect my grain when he don't know whether I have it for sale for seed or not. It is none of his business what I have it there for, unless I let the public know that I have this seed there for sale for sowing purposes.
* Mr. FISHER. There is a good deal in what the hon. member for Northumberland (Mr. Cochrane) says, and I think it might be well possibly to limit the application of this section in some cases. As I said before, it is taken almost verbatim from the General Inspection Act ; but the circumstances are a little different.


Haughton Lennox: I would ask the minister to consider another phase of this matter. There is a penalty of $500, no for having seed that is improperly labelled, but for, in any degree, obstructing the officials. It might work out in this way : A farmer has only enough wheat upon his place to seed his own farm and feeling it to be a serious injustice that this official should come in, inspect his grain and takes a sample of it. He does, to some slight extent, obstruct the official. He has no knowledge of the law. Of course, it is said, that a want of knowledge of the law is no excuse-that every man is bound to know the law, but still we must look at this thing from a practical standpoint. He has no knowledge of the law, he knows he is right, he obstructs tuis official and he is fined. He has only enough seed to seed his farm, he has no intention of selling any, he can prove beyond question
that he had not anything to sell, he feels if an injustice that this man can come in and invade his rights and property, he obstructs him to some extent and although it is proven in the end that the grain was not offered for sale he is fined $500. I would like the hon. minister to consider that point.
Mr. FIiSlHER. The qualification which I have just suggested might be put in in accordance with the request of the hon. member for Northumberland (Mr. Cochrane). That will cover the point that the hon. gentleman speaks of.


Haughton Lennox: Very good.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: In regard to that other question it seems to me it is not very clear yet, that is, as to who may take samples of seed, and under what circumstances they may be taken for the government analyst. The Bill says ' any inspector, informant or complainant.'


Sydney Arthur Fisher: That is the 11th clause.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Yes, my first question was : must these samples be taken in the presence of the person who sold the seed ? And the hon. minister's first reply was that this was quite unnecessary. I see there is a provision which says :
Any inspector, informant' or complainant who, finds or suspects seeds to be sold, or offered, exposed or had in possession for sale for the purpose of seeding in violation of the provisions of this Act, shall take a sample from the said seeds and forward it to such person as the Governor in Council appoints as an official seed analyst to examine and report upon any seed submitted for analysis under the provisions of this Act.
Section 12 provides that:
Any sample of seed taken for official analysis

This may be taken by either the inspector, informant or complainant :

under the provisions of this Act shall be
taken in the presence of-
(a)	the person who sold or offered, exposed or had in his possession for sale the said seeds, or
(b)	two impartial or non-interested witnesses.
Would it be competent for a person when purchasing seed to take it home, then afterwards call in two impartial witnesses, take a sample of the seed and send it to the government analyst ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Yes. The farmer who purchases the seed need not necessarily take a sample in the store before he leaves. He may take it home. He may send his servant or his boy to buy the seed and when he gets this seed home, according to the provisions of section 13, he may take a sample ' within seven days from the date on which the seeds entered into the personal possession and became the property of the puchas-er.' It would never do to restrict the tak-

ing of a sample of the seeds to the moment of purchasing the seeds. We -would practically nullify the operation of the Act. Of course, when the sample is taken it has to be taken fairly in the presence of two unbiased, unprejudiced: witnesses who will certify to its being a fair sample of the seeds.
Mr. iSPROULE. This applies to seeds that are not sold in sealed packages. Suppose seeds are sold in sealed packages, wha't then ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: There are two cases provided under section 13. One is the case where seed is sold in a sealed package. I am glad to know that a number of the best seedsmen are putting up their seeds in small sealed packages for the express purpose of protecting their own reputation, and the seed is sold through the retailer in an unbroken package bearing the seedsman's seal. Then, a sample must be taken at the time of breaking the seedsman's seal. Where the seed is sold in bulk and then retailed, we have to make other provisions and the provisions are as contained in section 13. Samples are to be taken within seven days and under section 12 they must be taken in the presence of two impartial and non-interested witnesses. I think we safeguard the seller as well as we possibly can.


George Eulas Foster: In reference to section 11, second line, does not the hon. minister think that is a little loose ?
Any inspector, informant or complainant' who finds or suspects seeds to be sold, &c.
Any man of a suspicious turn of mind is always suspecting things. We quite well know what little rivalries and jealousies are likely to take place.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: That is only as regards the taking of the sample. If he did not suspect he would not take the sample at all. We must allow him to take the sample on suspicion.


George Eulas Foster: 
Sydney Arthur Fisher: What does my hon. friend want him to have ?


George Eulas Foster: He should have some good ground for believing. He should have some prima facie evidence. Any man ean suspect anything, and suspicious men are apt to suspect anything.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: You cannot get the evidence until you have taken a sample and analysed it.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: 


George Eulas Foster: Neither could a man enter a house and take a criminal from that house until he had some basis for doing so.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: It is not a question of going into a man's house. It is simply the taking of a sample.


George Eulas Foster: It is a question of interfering with a man's property. He should have some reasonable ground for believing.


Hon. L. P. BRODEUR (Minister of Inland Revenue).: I may say that in regard to the Adulteration Act It is almost similar to this provision of the Bill. Where there is ground for suspecting that the law has been violated the inspector may go into a house and get samples; in fact, we generally give instructions to the inspectors to go into every store where they think goods are being offered for sale which do not comply with the law and procure samples. I suppose the same principle might apply in this case, 'there is nothing injurious to any person in the fact that collections of samples are made.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: But you do that for the safety of the public health.


John Barr: Do I understand that when taking these samples they are obliged to pay for them ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Yes.


Mr LENNOX.: Under section 10, but not under section 11.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Section 11 provides for the taking of a sample from what the purchaser has. It is not a forcible entry and the taking of a sample from somebody else's seed. It is the taking of a sample from the seed which has been purchased and which is in the possession of the purchaser who must take it and forward the seed to the analyst.


Haughton Lennox: Is that correct ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I understand so.


Haughton Lennox: I am not quite sure of that. It you take section 11 and section 12 together I think that section 12 will probably embrace what is provided for in section 11, and section 11 authorizes an inspector, informant or complainant who finds or suspects seeds, &c., to take a sample from the said seeds and forward it to the government analysts, and then any sample of seeds taken shall be taken in a certain way according to section 12. Do not these two sections go together ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Certainly.


Haughton Lennox: But then the inspector, informant or complainant can go into the premises of a person who has not sold one bushel or one package of grain and take a sample and not pay for it, whereas under section 10 if you take samples you must pay for them. I cannot see the reason for that difference.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: My reading of it is that section 10 gives authority to enter in and take a sample where there is somebody objecting to the taking of a sample, for instance from a merchant's bin or dealer's bag. There the person charged with the enforcement of the Act is given certain authority and power ; similar authority and power is given under the Customs Act, the Inland Revenue Act, and the Adulteration of Foods Act. It is not an unusual power at all. It is given under most of the Acts connected with the administration of just such things as this in Canada. But to return for a moment to my point. This section 10 provides for the taking of a sample when there is objection on the part of the owner of the grain to the taking of the sample, and the person charged with the enforcement of the Act has to exercise his authority and rights in order to perform his duty. Section 10 gives him that authority and that right. Section 11 provides that in a case that is in dispute, a sample must be taken to be forwarded to the government analyst for test or analysis, and it says that, that sample shall be taken by anybody who is entering upon a prosecution or a case or even if he does not want to enter into a case, if he simply suspects he has been wrongly treated he will take a sample of the grain and forward it to the government laboratory for analysis. Section 12 provides necessary precaution as to how and under what conditions a sample is to be taken which is to be forwarded for analysis. If the sample were not taken under these conditions, the analysis of the sample could not be used as proof in a test case. That is the object of section 10, to provide regulations and conditions under which a sample should be taken, the result of analysis of which would be used in a test case. I think these are the reasons for having three different sections ; they deal with the matter in three different ways.


Haughton Lennox: Section 11 can be taken with section 12.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Yes ; any samples taken under section 11 must be taken in the way prescribed in section 12.


Haughton Lennox: Section 11 goes very far. It embraces any case where goods are to be sold or offered, exposed or had in possession for the purpose of sale, and so on. It embraces any case where any person has these goods for sale. Then any inspector, informant or complainant may take a sample of seed with or against the owner's will and send it to the analyst, so that I do not see exactly why, if it is to be paid for in the case my hon. friend mentioned before, it should not be paid for in this case. That this provision applies to seller as well as buyer is further borne out, I think, by the provision in section 12 that a sample may be taken in the presence of (a) :
The person who sold or offered for sale or had in his possession for sale, such seed.
Now, if this did not apply to the dealer or grower, how could the sample be taken in the presence of the person who offered, exposed or had it in his possession for sale?. These are words which show plainly that not only does it embrace the case which the minister refers to as a case where a person has suffered. and therefore voluntarily acts, and might be supposed to surrender his sample without payment, but also that it applies to the other case of the dealer or grower, and if there is good reason for having provision for payment in the 10th section, I submit to the minister that there is much more reason for having it in the case of these two sections, for this reason that in this case there are a variety of people, not alone a government official who is always doing justice, but a variety of people who may act ; we have an inspector, an informant, and a complainant, and the informants and the complainants may if they think fit be legion. A may take a sample to-day, B to-morrow, and C the next day. There is no limit to the possible number of samples, and thus a valuable seed might be frittered away by enemies. That is not a probability, but it is a possibility, and a law should be certain. The Minister of Agriculture brings in the analogy of adulterated food, Surely he does not think that there is any analogy between a case of malfeasance such as that, a deliberate act of adulterating food, and the act of an honest farmer who has in his possession grain which he has no suspicion offends against this law, grain which contains seeds of which he does not know the name and which he has no means of testing. One is a direct crime against the laws and the other is at most a mere matter of neglect or want of knowledge or nonfeasance.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Will section 11 apply to any inspector ? No one has a right to go in and take a sample contrary to the desire of the owner except the government officials. The informant or complainant cannot do it except by the permission of the person owning the seed.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: You make it imperative because you say ' shall.'


Sydney Arthur Fisher: That ' shall ' means that in case of taking a sample for the analyst in order to get evidence for a prosecution; a sample shall be taken which shall serve the purpose.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: He may be an informant or an inspector.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I would not say that this section at all authorizes any informant or complainant or even an inspector to go into a place against the owner's will but of course I would not give a legal opinion on it. Section 10 does give that authority to the inspector.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: You tell him to do that knowing that he has not the authority.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I tell him to do a thing which, for a purpose, I presume he is able to do. If he is not able to do it I suppose he must get the sample in some other way.


Haughton Lennox: ' Shall ' is oi'dinarily imperative. Will the minister allow these two sections to stand for consideration ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I am perfectly willing to let them stand.
Sections 11 and 12 allowed to stand.
On section 13-Samples to be sent within seven days.


William Foster Cockshutt: What guarantee will there be to the dealer that the seed will reach the analytic department in the same shape as when it left the retailer's hands $ That is a very important matter. Seed might be surreptitiously placed in a parcel that was purchased. I would remind the hon. minister of the parable of the tares. He will remember that according to Holy Writ, a man sowed good wheat in his fields and at night, while he slept, the enemy sowed tares, and when the seeds sprang up the owner found both growing togethei-. It might be so in this case. I would like to know what safeguard there is that the samples, when they reach the analyst, will be exactly the same as they were when they left the dealer's hands.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Under section 17 the Governor in Council may make i-egulations, and in these we pi-opose to provide for the method of despatching the samples to the seed laboratory.
On section 14-analysis and certificate.


Mr. WM. WRIGHT.: Might I ask the Minister of Agriculture how many places in Canada will he available to anybody wishing to have seed tested ? Will it all have to be sent hei'e to Ottawa from every part of Canada ? If so, I think it will be a very sei'ious hindrance to the grain trade. Everybody acquainted with the trade knows that all the seed business is done inside of a few weeks, and every dealer buys very carefully, for the reason that he knows that if thei'e is any left over, he will have to carry it for twelve months. Perhaps half the seed sold by dealers is sold on rush oi'ders by wire to headquarters, and has to be hurried out at once. What opportunity would there be for a dealer to send samples to a central place and have them sent back before retailing the seed to his customers ? How long would it probably take, say from Manitoba, or from the maritime provinces, or from British Columbia ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I suppose that for the present there would be only one seed laboratory for analysis in the city of Ottawa. It Mr. FISHER.
is true, as my hon. friend says, the seed business is rushed pretty strongly in the spring, and I do not think it would be possible for the retailer to wait for an analysis of the seed he is selling. On receiving the seed he would take a sample and send it for analysis, and in the meantime would probably have to go on selling the seed. However, in section 8, subsections 2 and 3, machinery is provided by which, if he were prosecuted for selling bad seeds, and he had a sample taken in the way I speak of that would be a proof that would eliable him to relieve himself of the l'esponsibility and pass it on to the wholesaler who had sold him the seeds.


William Wright: Another point while
1	am on my feet. Anybody having a suspicion that any seed may he impure and not up to the requirements of this Act, should immediately send a sample to the Department of Agriculture. I think twelve months is altogether too long in order to ascertain whether action is going to be taken with regard to any seed. I think that anybody feeling aggrieved should be able to get an answer back .within three months.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: That point comes up later on.
On section 15-certificate as evidence.


Haughton Lennox: I wish to call the attention of the Minister of Justice to the words 'shall be accepted as evidence.' Sometimes it is provided that it shall be prima facie evidence in a matter of this kind. I presume that it shall only be accepted as evidence in the case, not as necessarily conclusive evidence.


Charles Fitzpatrick: I would not think it would be looked on as conclusive at all- merely as part of the evidence in the case.


Haughton Lennox: I think that is fail1.
On section 18-time for prosecution limited.


Haughton Lennox: Should we not better limit that to 6 months ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: It was six months in the old Act. My reason for changing it to twelve was the case contemplated in subsection
2	of section 8. In such a case, if the prosecution failed against the retail dealer, it would have to be continued against the wholesale dealer, and if the limit were made six months, there might be a failure of justice.


Haughton Lennox: In that case the extension is quite right, but in ordinary cases the limit should be only six months.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I shall consider the point and perhaps we might make the limit of twelve months apply only to cases under subsection 2 of section 8.


Angus Claude Macdonell: This clause is rather vague. It says that any prosecution may be

commenced within twelve months from the time when the matter of complaint or information arose and not later. What is that time ? Is it the time of sale by the wholesale dealer or resale by the retail dealer ? There might also be a doubt as to the nature of the offence. One of the offences is the exposing for sale. A merchant might expose for sale during two years and no prosecution be taken against him within those two years. If one were taken subsequently, what would be the position ? In my opinion none could be because the twelve months from the time when the matter of complaint or information arose would be up. It seems to me the clause might be made clearer.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: This clause was taken verbatim from the Summary Convictions Act. The clause in that Act is well understood and its interpretation well established by the courts.


Angus Claude Macdonell: I am not aware of any provision in the Summary Convictions Act which makes the exposing for sale an offence. Supposing a man had the goods exposed for sale a couple of years, what date would you take as that on which the matter of complaint or information arose '!


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I cannot answer the legal question my hon. friend has raised. I submitted the matter to the Department of Justice and they evidently considered that this clause covered the case.


Robert Nelson Walsh: Suppose information is not laid for six months or a year and no report given on the sample and the seedsman in the meantime goes on selling, how is the farmer to be protected ?
_ Mr. FISHER. I hope there will not be 'any such delay in analysing the samples and giving a report. The report should be given in two or three months at the longest. But this Bill is intended to act rather as a deterrent than as a means of punishment. Merchants will be very careful, because if they are fined a few times, they will get a reputation for selling bad seed and lose their trade. In that way the Act will do more good perhaps than by punishing wrong transactions.
On section 2 :
This Act shall come into operation on the first day of September, 1905.


William Foster Cockshutt: I think the delay is not sufficient. A great deal of seed will be on hand at that period, timothy seed just begins to sell freely in Ontario at that date. Fall wheat is then sown from the seed of the former season and the new seed is not on the market in time for the sowing of the fall wheat. There ought to be more time given the dealers, who have large amounts of seeds that may be condemned, to get rid of their stock on hand either by exporting it or cleaning it or in some other
way. A vast amount of stuff is held by the seedsmen from one season to another, and to bring in a sweeping Act which would take away thousands of dollars worth of property from the seedsman, as this will, is not in accord with justice. I think the time should be extended six months or a year.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: ,1 do not take much account of the idea that this Act will come into force too soon. Everybody in Canada has been fully warned that it is coming into force. The trade expected it last year, but unfortunately the pressure of business prevented its becoming law. I have been informed by those who are more expert than I in trade matters that any time between June 15 and September 15 would be the most convenient to the trade for the changed conditions, and have therefore made the date September
1.	There can be no doubt that the Senate will pass the measure, and the trade will have six months in which to prepare for it. I am quite prepared to consider -any date for the coming season which would be most convenient to the trade, but do not think we should put it off for another season.


William Foster Cockshutt: The time of the year that the hon. gentleman has selected is the proper one-between June and September. But I think that 1906 would be a better date to bring in so sweeping a measure.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: They have had warning.


William Foster Cockshutt: There is a vast quantity of seed in the hands of dealers that would not pass under the Act, and to make a law under which that property, perhaps, cannot be realized on at all, will be a very serious loss to individuals. It may reflect upon our farmers as well, who hold over considerable quantities.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: 1 would not like to take the responsibility of allowing seed such as the hon. gentleman (Mr. Cockshutt) speaks of, to be distributed among the farmers for another year.


Mr. P. II. McKENZIE.: As an agriculturist, I think we have been too long without this Act, and I protest against it being postponed any longer than the minister has stated. It is generally admitted in this country that the weed nuisance is becoming a very serious one, that many of our best farms are becoming polluted with foul weeds, and that tlie cost of farming these lands -is increased by the weed nuisance. Farmers are looking to the Minister of Agriculture to provide a remedy for this condition of affairs. Having listened to the debate, I must say, as a farmer, that I compliment the Minister of Agriculture on the steps he has taken, and I hope he will not longer delay in putting the law into proper condition and bringing it into

force in the interests of the farming community.


William Foster Cockshutt: I would just say, in answer to the hon. gentleman (Mr. P. H. McKenzie) that the seed grown in the province of Ontario is among the best in the world, in spite of our having no such law as is now proposed. I speak particularly of red clover and alsike. Ontario seed of these kinds brings, as is well known, more than the American product, and more than most of the European product. That being the case, why do we need this Bill so urgently ? It is certainly not because our seed is inferior. We have a large quantity of good seed, but most of it is shipped abroad.


Peter H. McKenzie: That is the very difficulty. We are exporting our best seed, and inferior and foul seeds are being sold to our own farmers. And, unfortunately, we have too many farmers who are willing to buy bad seed. We would like to have it put beyond the power of farmers to buy poor seed. This should be done in their own interest. I have noticed that the principal part of the opposition to this Bill has come from the lawyers and the seedsmen. I am astonished, in the first place, that the lawyers should object to the Bill. They say it is going to cause no end of lawsuits. Well, that would certainly be in their interest. As to the seed dealers, I think that when the law is working properly-as it will do before it is long in force-it will be found that it will not injure them at all. And it will greatly benefit the country in which we all take such an interest, and the prime industry of the country, the industry of agriculture.


Aaron Abel Wright: I am delighted to know that such good seed is produced in this province. And if, as the hon. gentleman (Mr. Cockshutt) says, there is such a great amount of splendid seed throughout the country, so much the better for the country at large, and so much the less danger of disaster to the holders of the seed. If the seed is good there is no danger of trouble.


David Henderson: I am surprised to hear an hon. gentleman talking about opposition to this Bill. It can only be explained on the ground that it comes from gentlemen who are new members of this House, and who fail to make the distinction between fair criticism and opposition. The life of parliament is criticism. It is unfair for any hon. gentleman to charge His Majesty's loyal opposition with having opposed a Bill simply because they have criticised its provisions. We have been endeavouring to help the minister to improve the Bill and make it workable. This we have been doing for the past three years, and I am happy to say that there has been Mr. P. H. McKENZIE.
a vast improvement in the Bill. I think the minister himself admits that there has been a great improvement, and I am sure he will give us credit for the assistance we have given. I believe that he looks at it differently from these other lion, gentlemen. There may be questions on which we disagree. For instance, there is the question of the time When the law should come into operation. But for my part, I am not prepared to give an opinion of that subject. My hon. friend from Brantford (Mr. Cockshutt) may be correct. He knows the conditions of the trade, probably, even better than the Minister of Agriculture does. There is room in this case for a fair difference of opinion; and I am sure that the Minister of Agriculture will not say that my hon. friend from Brantford has opposed the Bill simply because he has suggested a later time for its coming into operation. In view of the improvement that has already been made, it might be worth while to wait and get a perfect Bill, and one thoroughly workable-for there seems to be great difference of opinion as to whether this Bill is workable or not. I am not opposing the Bill by any means. If it is a good law for the country, His Majesty's loyal opposition will stand by it. We are the guardians of the farmers' interests as much as are hon. gentlemen opposite. I believe we represent more farmers than they do. We have been the friends of the farmers and have advocated the farmers' interests in every matter, not merely in such measures as this, but in the general policy of the country, and in providing markets for the farmer. It is not reasonable to say that we are opposing the measure because we criticise it. I am sure the Minister of Agriculture will give us credit for having assisted materially in bringing the Bill into its present improved shape.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I am glad to give hon. gentlemen opposite, and especially the hon. member for Halton (Mr. Henderson), an old friend whom I have seen in this House for many years, all the credit possible. But I would give him even more credit if he had not said so much about being the friend of the farmer. The hon. gentleman doth protest too much, methinks, I believe the farmer will realize that fact. We are not going to discuss the question as to who are the friends of the farmers ; the records of parliament and the records of legislation will prove that better than any protestations the hon. gentleman can make or I can make. But I am glad the hon. gentlemen opposite endorse the Bill which I have the honour to present to the House, and of helping through so far as it has gone. The principle of the Bill after all is the chief thing, and if we can get an unanimous endorsation of the principle of the Bill, I have no doubt the details can be threshed out and made workable by the combined common sense of the

members of this House. The Bill to day, while not so drastic as it was, is probably more to the taste of the people than when it was first introduced, and is more likely to be successful when passed. X trust that when this Bill becomes law and has been in force for a few years, the condition of affairs will be such that we will be able to pass a still more drastic measure, giving greater protection to the purchaser of seeds and greater protection to those who are engaged in the trade. I would be glad to be able to do that in the years to come as Minister of Agriculture.


David Henderson: I do not think it lies in the mouth of the Minister of Agriculture to charge me, during the time I have been in this House, now some sixteen or seventeen sessions, with having at any time failed to stand up in the interests of the farmers of this country. Perhaps the hon. gentleman can recollect the time when he opposed a measure in this House that was directly in the interest of the farmers, when he stood up against a measure that was intended to protect the butter interests of the farmers. That is something I cannot be charged with. The hon. gentleman would take half an hour to explain awav that little difficulty. I have (heard him try to do it, but to my mind he failed altogether in accomplishing his object.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: It was all explained away in the elections of 1897.	.


David Henderson: It is hard to explain away a speech and harder to explain away a vote.


Aaron Abel Wright: I am astonished to bear the hon. member for Halton (Mr. Henderson) say that he has improved this Bill by opposing it during all these years. I am sorry that we did not live with him, or he with us, in the days of the children of Israel, when Moses brought down the law on the mount. We would have heard the hon. gentleman cry out '* Wait Moses for a little while until the members of the opposition get a chance at this Bill, and you will see how they will improve it for you.


David Henderson: This is a new phase of the question. I do not know what kind of seeds they had in those days, I do not know what the hon. gentleman refers to.


George Eulas Foster: Manna.


David Henderson: He must have an extraordinary idea of legislation. I do not know where he is getting a precedent in those olden days for what we are doing this afternoon. He has not been here all the afternoon.


An hon. MEMBER.: Where was he ?


Mr HENDERSON.: I don't know, perhaps he was out with Moses somewhere. He spoke about my opposing the measure. I never opposed the measure, I do not know
a gentleman on this side who has opposed it. The member for South Renfrew (Mr. A. A. Wright) does not seem to be able to draw a distinction between fair criticism and opposition. The proper way to deal with the Bill in this House is to criticise it. I am not like the hon. gentleman, who merely sits here to register everything that the government proposes, whether it is right or wrong. When the hon. gentleman does that, I do not consider he is acting in the interests of his constituents, because he is simply registering what another man does. I am glad to hear the Minister of Agriculture say that while this measure is not so drastic as the measure of previous sessions, he thinks it will be much more acceptable to the people, and can be more effectually enforced.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again, when we will take into consideration the various sections that we have not dealt with.


George Eulas Foster: I would suggest to the hon. gentleman not to take this up in committee stage again for, say, about ten days. The discussion we have had will go out to the country through the press, and in the meantime we may receive certain suggestions which will serve to make the Bill even better than it is.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: The hon. gentleman's suggestion is reasonable, but the business of the House may require that we take it up a little earlier.
Progress reported.
On motion of Sir William Mulock, House adjourned as 9.50 p.m.

Wednesday, February 1, 1905.