1905-02-16

Mr. BERGERON asked :: 1.	What amount was appropriated by parliament in 1904 for the extension of the drill hall at Quebec ?
2.	What part of said amount has been expended in the purchase of land ?
3.	To whom has the said amount been paid ?
4.	What is the date of the payment ?
5.	Before whom was the deed of acquisition received ?
6.	Was there a regular proceeding in expropriation for the said acquisition ?
7.	Who were the expropriation commissioners ?


Hon. CHAS. HYMAN (Acting Minister of Public Works) :: 1.	$30,000.
2.	$20,000.
3.	To Hon. P. A. Ckoquette, through Mr. C. E. Taschereau, agent of the Department of Justice.
4.	December 3rd, 1904.
5,	6 & 7. Expropriation was made through notice issued by the Department of Justice, by virtue of ' The Expropriation Act.'



EMPLOYEES-INTERCOLONIAL RAILWAY.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. FOWLER-by Mr. Taylor-asked :
1.	Are C. C. Weldon, C. B. MeDougall, R. S. LegSre, M. C. Lockhart, M. L. Tracey, and N. L. Rand, in the employ of the Intercolonial Railway ? If so, in what capacity, respectively?
2.	Is the Minister of Railways aware that these persons took an active part as political workers in the late federal campaign on behalf of Honourable H. R. Emmerson and Oliver J. Leblanc, Liberal candidates in Westmoreland and Kent in said contest ?
3.	If the attention of the Minister has been called to the matter, will he take steps to have an investigation under oath into the conduct of these persons, if they are now in the employ of the Department of Railways ?
Hon. H. R. EMMERSON (Minister of Railways and Canals) :: L Yes, namely : C. C. Weldon, clerk in Audit Office; C. B. MeDougall, clerk in Audit Office ; R. S. Legere, clerk in office of engineer of maintenance ; M. C. Lockhart, fuel inspector ; M. L. Tracey, inspector of car cleaning ; N. L. Rand, master mechanic.
2.	The minister is not aware that the gentlemen named took an active part as political workers in the late federal campaign : one of the gentlemen named, Mr. C. B. MeDougall, was absent from his duties on leave, and was not on the pay-roll of the Intercolonial Railway during the period named ; and, so far as the minister knows, the other gentlemen named attended strictly to the duties of their respective positions during the last federal campaign.
3.	The attention of the Minister of Railways and" Canals has not been called to the matter.



CANADIAN HERRING INDUSTRY.

Mr. LEFURGEY asked :: 1.	Has the government erected or contributed to the erection of a bait' freezer establishment at Canso, N.S., upon property which is not owned by or vested in the Crown ?
2.	If so, upon whose property has such bait freezer been erected ?
3.	What amount has the government contributed or agreed to contribute, or what' does it propose to contribute toward the establishment of such a bait freezer ?
4.	Under what conditions or safeguards, if any, has such money been contributed ?
5.	What amount has the government expended, or undertaken to expend, at 'Canso, in connection with the establishment of improved methods of curing herring or other fish ?
6.	What has been accomplished in this regard during the past year ?
7.	How many barrels have been cured, and what was the cost of the work ?
8.	Was any steamer engaged by the government in this connection ?
9.	How long was such steamer employed in such work, and at what cost ?

10.	In what work was such steamer engaged after ceasing to be employed in connection with the herring industry ?
11.	What is the name of the said steamer ?
12.	Was the said steamer chartered to Messrs. A. N. Whitman & Company for any, and what period, and for what remuneration ?
13.	What is the value of the said steamer, and by whom is it owned ?


Hon. WILLIAM PATERSON (for the Minister of Marine and Fisheries) :: 1.	Yes.
2.	Messrs. A. N. Whitman & Son.
3.	One half the cost up to $25,000 and a bonus for the first three years of $4 per ton on bait frozen up to 500 tons.
4.	The plant is to be operated under regulations sanctioned by the Minister of Marine and Fisheries, and a representative of the department at Ottawa shall be on the board of directors.	[DOT]
The paid-up capital of the company shall not be less than $60,000.
No mortgage shall be placed on the building or plant without the sanction of the Minister of Marine and Fisheries.
Bait shall be sold to bank fishermen and boat fishermen at the current market rate, and Canadian boats and vessels shall be given a rebate of 10 per cent on the current market rate.
The freezer is to be operated to the fullest extent for at least fifteen years after the expiration of the bonus.
Failing the fulfilment of any of these conditions, the building and plant is to revert to His Majesty.
5.	$13,807.35.
6.	Information was obtained by the herring drifting operations respecting the movements and resorts of the herring schools offshore, which information has hitherto been very imperfect.
The superior quality of Canadian herring for curing purposes, after the Scottish methods, has been established beyond question.
New and highly remunerative markets have been practically opened by the sample shipments of Scotch cured herring from Canso, which were pronounced by New York buyers to be equal to the best Scotch or Norwegian herring.
Such widespread interest has been created amongst the herring fishermen all along our Atlantic shores that, by the continuation of the experiment for a longer period, a general and immediate improvement of Canadian cured herring is inevitable.
7.	Forty barrels. Answered by No. 5.
8.	Yes.
9.	From June 3rd to November 23rd, $6,375.68.
10.	It was arranged with Messrs. A. N. Whitman & Son to keep the vessel in readiness for use when needed.
11.	Herring drifter No. 33.
12.	No.


Mr. LEFURGEY.: 13.	$16,546.67. The Department of Marine and Fisheries.



IMMIGRATION IN 1904.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. BARR-by Mr. Lewis-asked :
1.	What number of immigrants arrived in the Dominion of Canada during the year 1904?
2.	What number of children under 12 years of age arrived during the said year?
3.	Were they examined by medical experts before leaving Europe ?
4.	'What was the amount, if any, paid for such examinations ?
5.	Were the said immigrants examined by medical experts on arriving at our ports ?
6.	What was the name of each examiner, and what was the amount paid each ?
Rt. Hon. Sir WILFRID LAURIER (Prime Minister) :: 1.	Total immigration for calendar year
1904,	134,223.
2.	Total number of children under twelve years of age from Europe, 17,056.
3.	Yes.
4.	Nothing paid by Dominion government.
5.	Yes.
6.	Dr. A. C. Hawkins, $1,201.51 ; Dr. W. L. Ellis, $1,800.02 ; Dr. A. Potvin, $1,019.75 ; Dr. J. C. Howe, $1,400 ; Dr. A. D. Stewart, $1,233.32.



DREDGING IN PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND.

Mr. A. A. McLEAN asked :: 1.	How many dredges are employed in Prince Edward Island by the government of Canada? What are their names, and where are they now located ?
2.	What harboursi were dredged in that province during the season of 1904 ?
3.	Is there a new dredge in course of construction for use in Prince Edward Island waters ? If so, where is it being built, and when will it be completed ?
4.	Is the department in charge of these public works aware that the harbour of Crapaud is in a dangerous condition for navigation, by reason of the harbour channel being recently filled in with sand?


Hon. CHARLES HYMAN (Acting Minister of Public Works) :: 1.	The dredge ' Prince Edward.'
2.	Dredging was done at Belfast, Morell and Vernon River Bridge.
3.	Yes, building by the Bertram Engine Works of Toronto, to be completed in July,
1905.
4.	No report to that effect has reached this department.



PRESCOTT LIGHTHOUSE DEPOT.

Mr. MONK asked :: 1.	What is the total area and the cadastral designation of the properties acquired by the government for the establishment of a Dominion lighthouse depot at Prescott.
2.	What were the prices paid ?
3.	Who were the vendors, and what were the commissions on the sale, and to whom paid ?


Hon. WILLIAM PATERSON (for the Minister of Marine and Fisheries) :: 1.	The department has acquired two properties at Prescott for the establishment of the Dominion Depot ; the first known as the Labatt property has an area of 3'155 acres ; that known as the Buckley lot, an area of T6 of an acre. The Labatt property is described as part of lot 27 south side of King street in block 3 of the town of Prescott, If acres, and water lot If acres lying in front thereof, at one time forming part of the east half of township lot No. 4 in first concession of the township of Augusta in the county of Grenville. The Buckley lot is described as part of lot No. 27 on the south side of King street in block 3 of the town of Prescott.
2.	For the Labatt property $26,500, and $1,000 for the Buckley lot.
3.	For the Labatt property, John Labatt, London, and James Buckley of Prescott. Commission on sale of Labatt property 2) per cent and $200. Expenses paid to George B\ Thompson, Ottawa. No commission was paid re Buckley property.



GLENN ROSS POST OFFICE.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. PORTER-by Mr. Taylor-asked :
1.	How long had the post office at Glenn Ross, Ontario, been in existence before its abolition during last year ?
2.	Why was this office abolished, instead of another postmaster being appointed on the resignation of the last incumbent of the office.
3.	Is it the intention of the department to re-open or re-establish this office ? If so, when?
Hon. Sir WILLIAM MULOCK (Postmaster General) :: 1.	From die 1st December, 1882.
2.	This office was closed owing to the fact that the postmaster resigned and almost immediately afterwards left the locality. The retiring postmaster expressed the opinion that nobody was willing to accept the office, and, as he pressed to be relieved at once, the inspector decided that he had no recourse but to close it.
3.	The office was re-opened on the 1st November, 1904.



TORONTO METEOROLOGICAL BUILDING.

Mr. FOSTER asked :: Is it the intention of the government to bring down a vote for the erection of a new building for the meteorological service in Toronto ? If so, when ?


Hon. WILLIAM PATERSON (Minister of Customs).: The matter is under consideration.



WHARFAGE REPAIRS AT STE. FAMILLE.

Mr. BERGERON asked :: 1.	Did the government, or the Department of Public Works, or any other department of the government, send to or place at the disposal of
one Frangois-Xavicr Gosselin, or any other person of the parish of Ste. Famille, Island of Orleans, a sum of money, during the course of the months of September, October and November last, for repairs to the wharf of the said parish ?
2.	If so, what sum ?
3.	Was the said sum spent and did the person to whom it was confided render an account thereof ?


Hon. CHARLES HYMAN (Acting Minister of Public Works).: No such sum of money was placed in the hands of the party named, or any other person, but authority was given on the 12th October, 1904, to F. X. Gosselin, foreman of works on Ste. Famille wharf, to expend $500 on urgent repairs to the flooring of the old part of the wharf. Pav-lists and accounts have not yet been received, and consequently no money has been paid.



WHARFAGE DUES.

Mr. BERGERON asked :: 1.	Has the government received a request for the abolition of the wharfage dues on the wharf belonging to the government at St. Laurent, St. Jean, St. Francois, and Ste. Famille, Island of Orleans ?
2.	If so, by whom was that request made, and what is the date thereof ?
3.	Is it' the intention of the government to abolish the wharfage dues in question ?


Hon. WILLIAM PATERSON (Minister of Customs) :: 1.	No, so far as the wharfs at St. Laurent and St. Jean, are concerned. The other wharfs are not under the control of the Department of Marine and Fisheries.
2.	None, so far as the wharfs at St. Laurent and St. Jean are concerned.
3.	No, so far as the wharfs at St. Laurent and St. Jean are concerned.



GRAND TRUNK PACIFIC RAILWAY-PLANS.

Mr. BOYCE asked :: 1.	What plans, if any, showing the general location of the proposed line of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway, the termini, at the Pacific coast, Port Arthur, Fort William, and Winnipeg, and showing the physical features of the country through which said railway is to be constructed, have been prepared and deposited under section 122 (1) of the Consolidated Railway Act of Canada, 1903 ?
2.	Has any application or applications been made to the Minister of Railways, under subsection 2 of said section, for approval of said plan or plans ?
3.	If so, what are the dates of such applications. respectively ?
4.	Have such plans, or any of them, been approved ? If so, which ?
5.	Have any plans been rejected ? If so, which, and for what reasons ?
6.	What is the reason for suspending approval of any such plans not yet approved ?


Hon. H. R. EMMERSON (Ministei' of Railways and Canals) :: 1.	There are no plans of the general location deposited in the department, but plans of proposed termini at Fort William, Port Arthur and on the Pacific coast have been deposited in the department, but they have not been approved.
2.	Yes.
3.	Fort William, August 2nd, 1904. Port Arthur, August 16th and December 12th, 1904. Pacific coast, August 16th, 1904.
4.	No.
5.	No.
6.	Because it would be premature to approve them.



EMPLOYMENT OF R. E. A. LEACH.

Mr. BOYCE asked :: .
1.	Is R. E. A. Leach at present In the employ of the Canadian government at Winnipeg or elsewhere ?
2.	If so, what position does he hold ; when was he appointed, and at what salary ?
3.	What are his duties ?
4.	Is he at presenQ_performing his duties in the employment of the government ?
5.	Is the government aware that complaints have been made as to the unwarranted activity of Mr. Leach during the last parliamentary elections ?


Rt. Hon. Sir WILFRID LAURIER (Prime Minister) :: 1.	Yes.
2.	Inspector of Dominion Lands Agencies. Was appointed January 1, 1905, at $2,000 per annum.
3.	He inspects the offices of the local agents of Dominion Lands, and supervises the Homestead Inspection service.
4.	Yes.
5.	No.



INQUIRIES FOR REPORTS AND RETURNS.

Mr. R. L. BORDEN.: Might I ask the Prime Minister when it is expected that we shall have the remainder of the Auditor General's Report ? If I remember rightly, under the terms of the statute it is required to be laid on the table of the House by the 31st of January if the House is then in session, and, if the House is not then in session, within seven days after the opening of the session. I understand that the work has been completed as far as the Auditor General is concerned.


Sir WILFRID LAURIER.: As my hon. friend knows, the time when the Auditor General's Report should have been on the table of the House has expired for some time. I understand that the report is completed, but I cannot to-day tell my hon. friend when it will be ready to be laid on the table. I have been told on Monday, but I cannot say for certain.


Robert Laird Borden: If it is not likely to come on Monday, perhaps the Prime Mr. BOYCE.
Minister will give us the information tomorrow or on some early occasion as to the probable date.


Mr. SPROULE.: The other day, when I asked in regard to the report of Mr. Justice Britton on the Yukon and the report of the Royal Commission to inquire into the employment of alien labour, I understood the First Minister to say that they wei-e both down.


Wilfrid Laurier: No. Judge Britton's report is down, but I did not say anything about the other.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What about the other one ? I see that it is mentioned in the report of the Department of Labour, but although it is a long time since the commission was appointed, we have no report of it yet. The gentleman was appointed a judge since then and there ought to have been a report made to parliament about what he did.


Sir WILLIAM MULOCK.: I shall inquire and inform the hon. gentleman to-morrow.



THE RETURNING OFFICER, YUKON.

Robert Laird Borden: Has my right hon. friend any further information regarding the matter I mentioned yesterday and the day before, namely the reasons which induced the returning officer in the Yukon to postpone so long the counting of the ballots ?


Wilfrid Laurier: I shall lay on the table the correspondence between the Secretary of State and the returning officer to-morrow.



MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.

George Eulas Foster: Who is administering the Department of the Interior at present and when may we expect the minister ? There are certain matters of more or less importance to be brought up and which are waiting his return.


Wilfrid Laurier: I had a report some time ago from the minister himself that he expected to be here on the 15th. I understand, however, that be will not be able to return for some time as the progress in his health, I am sorry to say, is not so rapid as was expected. In the meantime I shall be happy to give my hon. friend any information in my power.



PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND MAID SERVICE

Alfred Alexander Lefurgey: Would the lion., the Postmaster General give us some information as to the condition of the mail service to and from Prince Edward Island at present ? There are only four boats available to cross each way, and the mails are piled up on either side to such an extent

that it is impossible to handle them. A great part of the mails have been transferred from the Straits to the steamer ' Minto ' and will probably be lying on that boat until the end of March unless we get much milder weather than has prevailed this last month. The ' Minto ' and the * Stanley ' have been tied up since the 24th of January and are likely to be tied up another month. I understand that the service at the Capes has not been such as should have been provided to meet an emergency of this kind. I have reliable information that in one case when there was a boat available in the boat house at the Capes, they had to telegraph to Ottawa for permission to get it out and and have it manned and it took three days before they could get an order from Ottawa. When the department are aware that the steamers are tied up, they should use every effort to have a sufficient force put on the other boats available to carry the mails across. The people on the Island have had no newspapers and very few letters since the 4th of the month. During the space of 16 days, there was only one mail. This is certainly a discreditable state of affairs and I call the attention of the hon. the Postmaster General to it.


Mr. LEWIS.: As the government and its ministers should be as much interested in this matter as the people immediately concerned, I would suggest that the ice boat now in use between Montreal and Quebec should be put on this route between the mainland and Prince Edward Island.


William Mulock: My hon. friend from West Huron is quite right in saying that the government are as much interested as any one could be in keeping open communication between Prince Edward Island and the mainland. The other day, I explained what the difficulties were, and I do not believe that Divine Providence has been any more gentle with us in the matter of storms since then. In fact I see in the press that the storms have been repeated especially in the maritime provinces, and the trains are being delayed in all directions. My hon. colleague the Minister of Railways has just handed me the following telegram :
Moncton, N.B., Feb. 16th, 1905.
D. Pottinger, Ottawa.
Another heavy snow storm with high north east wind commenced early this a.m., and extends all east of Bathurst. Number 34, one hour and a half late. Number 9 arrived St. John two hours late. Number 10 about three hours late, has two engines and plough. Mr. Jarvis reports quite useless to move any trains until storm abates. Numbers 1 and 25 will be held at Halifax until weather improves. A train of important freight for Halifax stuck on main line at Sandy Cove, engine ran to Wellington to report ; cars will have to remain where they are until relief train can be sent. Superintendent Campbell reports cancelled all trains west of Strait.
(Sgd.) T. EVANS.
My hon. friend from Prince Edward Island has drawn attention to an instance which occurred, but he did not give the name of the boat or the information which would enable me to inquire into it. I would ask him to give me such information as will enable me to inquire into the 'matter and see whether any of our officers were guilty of delay. I think it will be found on inquiry that everything human beings can do, has been done, and is being done to keep open the mail service.


Alfred Alexander Lefurgey: I do not think that these boats which cross at the Cape have any particular names. They are simply small boats on runners, manned by seven or eight men. They are pushed across the ice until open water is reached when they are propelled by oar.


William Mulock: Will my hon. friend give me the dates ?


Alfred Alexander Lefurgey: I have not got them just now, but this is not a new matter. It is the same old story of unreadiness on the part of the department to meet the emergencies of winter, and I am very sorry to have to bring it to the attention of the government every session. In fact the government seem to suffer from an apparent lethargy in this matter and are unable to grapple with the situation. I cannot recall any particular date, but I have reliable information that these delays have occurred and are still occurring. I call the attention of the government to the fact now, and on another occasion I hope to address the House more fully on the subject.



OBSTRUCTIONS AT CHATEAU RICHER.

Mr. MORIN.: When may I expect an answer to the motion I made on the 23rd January last, regarding the removal of rocks and boulders in the parish of Chateau Richer below Quebec ?


Wilfrid Laurier: I shall take a note of it.


Jean-Baptiste Morin: How am I to get an answer, Mr. Speaker ?


Wilfrid Laurier: I understood my hon. friend (Mr. Morin) to ask concerning the removal of rocks from Chateau Richer. I will try to get an answer as soon as possible.


Jean-Baptiste Morin: And how soon will that be ?



SALES OF NORTHWEST LANDS.

George Eulas Foster: May I ask my right hon. friend to request the officers of the Interior Department to hasten the return of lots sold in the Northwest ?


Wilfrid Laurier: I shall be happy to do so.



INSPECTION AND SALE OF SEEDS.

[Stage Direction]
House in committee on Bill (No. 7) respecting the Inspection and Sale of Seeds.- Mr. Fisher.
On section 3,-seeds to be free from seeds of certain weeds; seller's name and address on package; exception :
Mr. W. F. COCKSHUTT (Brantford).: I had hoped that the minister would make some report of his consideration of this clause since our last debate upon the Bill. Before entering again upon the discussion of this clause, I desire to call the attention of the House to a statement that appeared in one of our leading newspapers with regard to what I said of this clause on that occasion. I refer to a statement that appeared in the Toronto ' Globe ' of February 1, representing me as saying that I desired the farmers of my district to be brought under the operation of the Act. I wish to state that that is a gross misrepresentation of what I said. I asked for no special favours for the farmers of my district, nor did I ask that any restrictions should be placed upon the farmers of my district that were not equally placed upon the farmers of the whole Dominion. This was a very unfair and a gross misrepresentation of the remarks I made on that occasion. I was discussing the Bill with the desire of making it as perfect as possible, and was offering the minister the suggestions I had to make as one engaged in the business. I was not considering how it might affect my district when the next vote came on, but addressed myself to the question simply with a view to making practical and useful suggestions. I think it is not right that such misrepresentations should be made.
I do not take back anything I said on that occasion, in spite of the misrepresentations. Since the last debate on the Bill, a large deputation waited on the Minister of Agriculture; and I think he will agree with me that it carried weight. There were practical men there who have spent their lives in the study of this great question. There were men there with technical knowledge such as few of those on the floor of this House or either side possess. These men gave their best energies for two hours and a half to lay before the minister the points on which they thought this Bill would conflict with the best interests of trade and agriculture. The minister knows what took place on that occasion, so it is unnecessary to advise him. I wish to say here, what appeared very evident on that occasion, that the Bill, if it has a principle at all is the supply of seeds of purity to the farmers and growers of the country. But, having declared that principle, the Bill proceeds at once to throw down the fence it has raised. The Bill hedges the trade about with restrictions-they shall only sell seeds of purity-and then, in a later clause it throws the whole thing open so that every grower Sir WILFRID LAURIER.
and every farmer may sell these seeds to his neighbours irrespective of any law. I took issue with that on the occasion of the last debate, and I stand by that still. If our object is to assert the principle of pure seed, it is absurd to make such a distinction in the selling of seeds that what will be a criminal act on the part of one man will be perfectly justifiable on the part of another. Not only is this a violation of the principle laid down in the Bill, but it is class legislation that, in my opinion, this country is not prepared for. I say there are many very good reasons why this clause should apply to the grower. I would like the minister to state here to-day why a dealer might not be a grower also; and if I, as a dealer, become a farmer and grower, shall I be free to sell from my barn seeds that I am prohibited from selling from my warehouse? That would appear to be the case under the Bill as it is framed. The minister permits the sale of seeds from a barn, storehouse or granary that would be prohibited if from a store. This is plainly class legislation. Further, I contend it is not in the interest of the farmers themselves. It is universally admitted by agriculturists, I think, that seeds should be planted in a different district from that in which they are grown. The interchange of seed by immediate neighbours is not a good thing. It is better by far to bring your seed from a distance than to buy it from your next-door neighbour. Now, I do not know whether the minister is aware or not, but I am aware, that some farmers are not only growers but dealers also. I could give him the names of farmers in my own district who not only grow seed of their own but also buy from their neighbours.
They have got a name for handling seeds well, they are good cleaners, they grow it well, and they have a name of buying a good class of seeds. These men not only grow their seeds themselves, but they buy seeds from their neighbours' fields. Though this Bill says the seed should be grown upon their land, what is there in the Bill to show that the seed that is sold from a barn is grown upon the farm in which that barn stands ? Who is to see to that ? Does he see the farm ? The farmer may have a show field in front of his premises growing fine seed, so that all the neighbours will say, pee that beautiful clean field. Though he might sell the product of a hundred acres from his barn-there is nothing here to prohibit him from doing that, and there is no, thing here to prevent him from selling seed that he has obtained from some other source than his own growing. He may do that. Therefore, I submit that that clause is not ia the interest of the dealer, it is not in the interest of the farmer himself and it is not in the interest of the grower. If the minister will examine that point carefully, I think he will see his way to alter that clause.

Further, I desire to point out what I pointed out on a previous occasion, that it is impossible-I make that statement deliberately-to placard every bag, receptacle or package with all the names there designated. Further, there is nothing to limit the size of the bag, receptacle or package. A receptacle, under the clause, so far as I can read it, may contain a thousand bushels of seed, it may be a large bin in which there may be a thousand bushels of seed. If that seed is not right, the man may be fined $5, but if he proceeds to put that thousand bushels into a thousand separate bags, he immediately becomes responsible for a thousand times that fine. Why should the quantity affect the fine ? He may put this into smaller packages still. When I raised the point the other day the minister said I had in mind ten cent packages. Not at all. Grass seeds are always put up in sacks. Let me refer to the white, Dutch clover. That is sold very generally by druggists, almost in every town and city, it is used in towns and cities almost entirely. It is impossible to placard that small bag containing five or ten pounds with all these names. Further, having placarded those bags with all these names, it becomes necessary not only to placard the bag with the names of the weeds contained therein, but also the seed that is sold. Now I wish to remind the minister that there is a very large amount of valuable seed that is grown in a mingled state. ;I cannot find in this clause or in any other clause that provision is made for handling that class of seed. It is not uncommon that in the same field there may be red clover, alsike clover and timothy seed, all grown in the one field, all nearly pure ; and still under the Act I do not find that the minister makes provision for the handling of these seeds, which every one knows are perfectly legitimate articles of trade. In fact the farmer in buying them often brings one sack to contain the three lots, and takes them all home in the one bag, they having been mixed in his presence. Surely it does not appear that the minister has given that consideration to this clause that he should have done. I contend that it is desirable to put practical and workable legislation on our statute-books,, and I say that if this clause goes through as it is it will do a great wrong. It throws down the principle that has been laid down regarding the purity of the seed. It permits one man to deal in an article that it condemns another man for handling, and it opens the door for the minister to allow the sale from one premise of an article that he would not allow to be sold from another. That is a system of legislation we are not ready for. It is going to do great harm, not only to the agriculturist, but also to the dealer and all concerned in the trade.
I asked a question the other day, which was answered, I regret to say, in my absence. the answer showing the various coun-37$
tries to which these seeds referred to are exported. I notice there is a list of thirteen countries to which these seeds are exported. That is in spite of the fact that we have no law at present governing seeds. We sell thousands of bushels of seeds to the very best countries, to men who are well acquainted with seeds. We will be prohibited to a large extent from doing that, because we will be compelled to label them with the names of certain weeds. I wish to point out to the Minister that under his Act he does not recognize the standards that rule in the trade at all. On the next clause, perhaps, I may more fully touch upon the point I refer to now, and that is with regard to the test which he submits the seed to. lie submits it to a test with regard to purity and germination. Now purity and germination are only partial tests of the value of seeds, as any one knows who is engaged in the trade, but a comparatively small part of the test. You may have a perfectly pure seed but very weak. It may germinate, but it will be very weak. It may be a seed that is not matured, it may be perfectly pure of its kind, but it is only about half size. Now to have a No. 1 seed you must have a seed that is fully developed, and it must not only be fully developed in size, but well developed in colour. Any man who handles seeds will tell you that those are the requisites that go to make up a first-class sample of seed. After the minister has laid down his law as to what constitutes a first-class seed, he has not got a first-class seed at all-not nearly as good as is sold tc-day under a less high grade than he proposes to establish here, for the reason that it may be perfect in purity and germination, but it is deficient in size and colour, two of the requisites of a first-class seed. I do not like to refer the minister to anything so small as small potatoes, but I can show him perhaps, just what I mean. You take five bushels of potatoes and cull from them one bushel of small size, only fit for hog feed. You give those to the hogs, and probably that is the best end of them. But these potatoes you culled out were, according to the minister's test, pure of their kind and would germinate. Now both of these points are fully established, they are pure and will germinate, and still they are *tery far short of what they should be according to the standard set up. Therefore, I contend that the minister is not laying down a proper law in endeavouring to force us to label a seed if it has got ten weed seeds to a thousand good seeds. It may be possible to have ten weed seeds to a thousand, and still be a far better article than we will have under this Bill. Any one that knows the state of the trade, knows that is a fact. Why should we be compelled to brand that package with all the imperfections in it ? Who would be able to sell a horse if he were obliged to brand all the imperfections on that horse ? Who would

be able to sell any article under those conditions ? Yet the hon. gentleman asks the seedsmen to brand upon their package every impurity and every imperfection, and then says, buy it if you dare. It is not a fair way of doing business, it is not a right way, it is not a way that will commend itself; I believe, to the intelligence of this country and this House.
Further, it is calculated to do an immense amount of damage to trade that ha3 been established. I say that this trade haS been well established under great difficulties. Yrou heard the First Minister the other day, in answering my question, say that upwardsi of ?1,300,000 worth of clover and grass seeds were exported from this country during the last year. Remember too that we have to supply almost the whole Dominion of Oan-i ada, because Ontario grows almost all thel clover and grass seed which are sown/ throughout the Dominion ; and after we have done that, we ship $1,300,000 worth of seed to foreign countries. That seed did; not go as a pure article, it went as the best seed that goes to the markets of the worlds and the proof is that it brought the price. There is the proof of the quality of the seed, that it brought a profitable price in the world's markets. I have here a report of the British Committee of Agriculture dealing with this question.
I do not know whether the hon. minister has seen this or not but there are some items in it that are well worthy of his reflection. The same class of committee I have asked for was appointed to deal with this question and it is the only proper way to deal with it now. It should either be referred by this House to the committee on agriculture or to a special committee selected by the Right Hon. Prime Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) or by some other gentleman in whom the House has confidence, and every one of these clauses should be dealt with and threshed out in the presence of men who have a full technical knowledge of the subject they are dealing with. I hold here the report that deals with the evidence collected. The committee says there that after travelling throughout the length and breadth of Great Britain and after re-eeiving testimony from growers, farmers, dealer's and men of every class interested in the trade it believes that it is not in the interest of the trade that government control should be set up. It is not palatable reading perhaps but it is a true statement made after a most thorough examination. Every one who knows anything about agriculture in Great Britain will say that they ai'e away ahead of us in this country, and still, after weighing this whole subject, after taking evidence from men of all classes and from men who are engaged in all the diffei'-ent branches of the seed business this committee were compelled to say that in their opinion they did not believe that government control would conduce to the advant-Mr. COCKSHUTT.
age of the trade or to the advantage of any agricultural interest. I trust the hon. minister will take into his consideration the proposition that I made privately to him the other day and that I make here again now, and that is that this Bill, befoi'e it becomes law7, in the interest of the country at large, should go before a committee where every single clause can be threshed out and everything shown up that is in it, seeds, weeds and all. Let that be done and the hon. minister will perhaps have a workable Bill, a Bill that can be carried out. But, put it on the statute-book as it comes before the House and it will either become a dead letter or else it will drive out every man who is now in the ti'ade. That is not my word, it is the word of the gentlemen who waited on the hon. minister the other day. I ask him if he will not consider the matter anti if he will not allow7 a committee of the House to thresh out evei'y clause of the Bill. Let him deal fairly with every interest and let every agriculturist in this House have a chance of hearing the technical side of the question presented. We cannot have the evidence brought before the House. These technical men cannot be heard here but they have their views. I have a lot of correspondence which has come to me since the Bill was up before, and I believe that other hon. gentlemen have also received correspondence. I hold in my hand a letter from Lieutenant Colonel Bruce, a former member of this House, and a gentleman who is highly respected on both sides of the House not only as a man of high standing but as a man who is in a position to speak with authority upon [DOT]this subject. He protests against this measure aixd says that he believes it will never become law. I have also a letter from a gentleman engaged in the ti'ade in my own city, Mi-. Horold, who writes in opposition to the Bill in clear and strong terms. These are men who are engaged in the business, who have spent a large portion of their lives in it, who understand the question thoroughly and who say that the Bill is unworkable and that it can never become law without driving out of the trade many w7ho are now in .it. Will w7e allow such a measure to go on the statute-book ? Will the hon. Minister of Agriculture persist in the face of the deputation that w7aited upon him the other day asking for the amendment of this clause ? This is more than a party question. It is more than party capital. What we want is a fair and workable measure that will not trammel the interests of any class or individual but will operate equitably all around. I trust the hon. minister will adopt the suggestion I have made in this respect, that he will permit this Bill to be referred either to the committee on agriculture or to a special committee. The fact has been bi'ought out in this discussion that in the opinion at least of hon. gentleman on this

side of the House the Bill will not be a workable measure, but that if it is adopted in its present shape it will inflict an injury upon the trade. I do trust that this House will see to it that before the Bill goes through the proposed amendments which are most important and which are most necessary in the interest of the dealer, in the interest of the country and in the interest of agriculture shall be introduced. If the hon. minister will accept these amendments he will have the co-operation I believe not only of his own friends but of every hon. gentleman on this side of the House. Our desire is to asisist the hon. minister to the utmost of our ability in making this a workable measure. I have letters and telegrams received since the discussion the other day, from a great many friends, backing me up in every point I have taken in the amendment of this Bill. I trust that I have not trespassed too long upon the time of the House, but I desired to make this statement.


Hon. SYDNEY FISHER (Minister of Agriculture).: Mr. Chairman, the hon. gentleman has dealt not only with the clause under consideration but with, apparently, all the clauses in the Bill. I will rather confine myself to the question he has treated as regards the clause under consideration leaving any other questions which he has raised, to be dealt with when they come up under the various clauses of the Bill. My hon. friend has spoken about the interest of the trade generally and about the importance of certain suggestions that were made to me by a deputation which he accompanied a few days ago to my office. I met that delegation with the greatest pleasure, I heard their suggestion and I pointed out to them that as a result of the discussion which took place in this House a few days ago I had already agreed to one or two points which they pressed very strongly. I pointed out to them that I was quite ready to meet them on other points, and if my hon. friend would wait until we reach the clause referred to I will show him that I propose to introduce certain amendments in deference to the desires of the trade where the trade seems to show a reasonable consideration for other interests and where their representations have carried conviction to my mind. My hon. friend has spoken at considerable length generally and I was rather surprised and I take issue with him in one or two of the illustrations that he gave and especially perhaps I should allude to his illustration in which he likened this trade in seeds to what I might call horse-jockeying. I do not think it is a very happy illustration because I think those who are engaged in the commerce of seeds are an honourable body of men who are not engaged in any dishonest practices and who would not like themselves to be classed for a moment
with those who are dealing in unsound horses. But, there are one or two points in which this trade differs from most trades in the country, and even differs from that in horses because the individual who buys seeds has no possible way of testing what he is buying. Seeds as a general rule, especially grass seeds and clover seeds, are of a character that no ordinary man, even an ordinary farmer accustomed to the growth and handling of seeds, can carefully judge the value of. The essence of the whole Bill, the most important principle in this whole question, is that we are dealing with a subject, a trade or a product, which requires to have careful test to show its real value. Therefore we require to throw safeguards around the -transaction so that the purchaser shall be fairly protected.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: If it is surrounded with safeguards that cannot be applied in practice what is the use of it?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I do not wish now to enter upon the discussion of another point, which of course is of general application, but which does not apply to what my hon. friend (Mr. Cockshutt) whom I am now answering, has alluded to. The question at issue in this particular section, as I understood the hon. member from Brantford (Mr. Cockshutt) is as to whether we should amend and modify the clause which exempts farmers selling, on their own premises, seed which they have grown to other people. My friend wants that provision modified; he says that it is a very dangerous blow at the trade, that it is going to bring about the sale of impure seeds. I take issue with my hon. friend on that point. I maintain that when the farmer who has raised these seeds 'sells them on his own premises to a person who has come to his premises to buy these seeds the purchaser has his eyes open and probably has a knowledge in regard to the quality and character of those seeds which no purchaser from a seed merchant or a dealer could possibly have. Therefore the two transactions are entirely different in their character.


Robert Laird Borden: Did the minister say that a purchaser from the grower has better opportunities of knowing what he is purchasing than the purchaser from a dealer? Is that the point?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Yes, and I say that the purchaser who buys from a farmer seeds which have been raised on that farm, presumably and almost surely, has opportunities of knowing what he is buying which the farmer who buys from a dealer has not.


Robert Laird Borden: What means ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Where the seed is sold on the premises by the grower the chances are * 100 to 1 that it will be purchased only by

a person who lives within a reasonable distance of that farm. It might be that a purchaser might come from a distance to buy but if he did so, he would probably come because he knew something about the grower of that seed and the conditions under which it was grown, as the grower would probably have a reputation for growing clean and pure seed. It is inconceivable that a farmer from a distance who knew nothing about the farm or the man should come to the premises of a farmer who grew certain seed and buy seed from him. I say that is practically inconceivable.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: That happens repeatedly and repeatedly.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I do not believe it does.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Now there is a flat contradiction.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Yes.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I can tell the minister that I have seen men who have driven sixty miles, go into a locality where clover and other seeds were largely raised and inquire of farmers around where they could buy seed, and I have seen load after load taken out of the neighbourhood.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: And why? Because


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Because the seed was grown largely in that locality.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: And because he wanted to buy that seed from that farmer. That farmer had a reputation for raising seed.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Not at all. I have seen a man make inquiry generally, at a hotel, as to where he could buy seed. I have seen this over and over again and I have given instructions to a buyer' to go to a certain locality where they raised large quantities. The buyer knew nothing about the farms.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: He then has the privilege under this section of demanding that the purchase should be made under the provisions of the Act, and it is only if the purchaser wishes it that the seller is exempted from the provisions of the Act, and I cannot myself believe that any people would go, as my hon. friend says, and deliberately put themselves at a disadvantage in regard to their purchases when they have within their own power the privilege of requiring that the seed shall be sold to them under the terms of the Act. I want the committee to understand fully the provisions of this section; it might be inferred from what has been said that this is a wholesale and special exemption. It is a very limited exemption, which only applies to the sale of seed on the premises of the person who has grown it to another person who is going to use it for seed and not to sell it, and then only if the purchaser Mr. FISHER.
does not require a certificate that the seed is sold under the provisions of the Act.


Robert Laird Borden: I understand the minister to say that any one purchasing from a producer has better opportunities of knowing what he is buying than if he purchased from a dealer. We will allow that to pass for the present. Does it not follow from the vtery reasons the minister urges that the man who has produced and is selling the seed would know better what he is selling than the man who is simply dealing in this seed and does not know anything about the manner in which it has been grown? How does it follow under the terms of the Bill that you impose a certain pena Ity upon one who is only dealing in the seeds and knows little about them and at the same time impose no penalty upon one who has raised the seeds and who is supposed to know all about them and the manner of their growth? That is the difficulty I see.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Under this provision the transaction has to take place on the premises of the farmer who raises the seed.


Robert Laird Borden: And who knows all about the seed?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: And who knows all about the seed. He sells the seed to an indiyidual who can if he chooses bring the transaction under the provisions of the law.


Robert Laird Borden: Certainly he can.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: If he does not do so, it is presumed that it is because he is satisfied of the quality of the seed he is getting. If he feels any doubt about the seed he is getting, he can require that the transaction shall be brought under the action of the law. If he knows enough about the farmer and the seed he need not do so. The reason, however, for this exemption is that the grower of the seed himself, the farmer, has practically no way of knowing what the seedsman, who is in the business and who does as a matter of fact clean seed and who has machinery for cleaning seed, can easily know, but which the farmer selling as he does on his own premises seed which he grew himself would find it very difficult indeed if at all possible to know. This Bill provides especially for the sale of cereals where in small transactions between neighbours seed may be sold and not be subject to the provisions of this section of the law.
I want to point out further that this exemption applies only to one section of the law. It does not allow the farmer to mark his; seeds as first quality. It only exempts him from the necessity of putting upon them the name of certain weeds, for the reason that he cannot and ought not to be expected to know the seeds of weeds in the way that a dealer or seedsman would know them. The intention of the section is to

permit of transactions between neighbours such as are common in all sections of the country. The farmer at one season may be out of clover seed or grass seed, or he may want a little oats or wheat or barley to sow his fields with, and he is to be allowed to go to his neighbour to get them. He knows his neignbour's fields and method of farming, and may, therefore, be supposed to be able to judge fairly well of the quality of the seeds he is buying. If he chooses to risk buying them without bringing the transaction under the operation of the Act, he can do so, but if he wishes to protect himself he can demand that the transaction shall be brought under the operation of the Act, and then it shall be subject to all the penalties and restrictions which the Act provides. It seems to me that we should not interfere with transactions of that kind. Interference would not only be unnecessary, but it would be unfair ami would create a hardship in the business of agriculture. The hon. member for Brantford (Mr. Cock-shutt) has referred to this as a means of selling bad seeds. I do not think it is. I do not think it will produce the same kind of difficulty in the seed trade that the sale of bad seeds by seedsmen or dealers would do ; because this sale of seeds would not spread the weeds which may be contained in them over a large area of country. My hon. friend from Grey said a few minutes ago that he had known men to go sixty miles for seeds. That is a pretty long distance, I should think about the limit of the distance that could come under the operation of this clause. But a seedsman may sell seeds in another province, to some one a thousand miles away. Nobody knows whether he is going to sell seeds to be used on the next farm or at a great distance. The origin of the seed is quite out of reach of the knowledge of the purchaser. As a matter of fact, I do not think the seedsmen themselves, when they fill an order, can generally tell where the seeds came from. 1 may say that when this subclause was first drawn it was not even limited to the sale of seeds by a farmer on his premises. If a farmer sold seed to another person, to be used for seeding, he was to be allowed to do so. I think I have hedged this exemption round with every possible limitation which could be introduced without creating a very great hardship and hinder-ance to the agricultural operations of farmers, and I do not see how it is possible for me to go any further in that respect. When representations were made to me the other day by the deputation of seedsmen, I told them that I would be glad to consider what they proposed, and all they proposed was that the effect of the certificate should be reversed, that is to say, that the sale should come under the operations of the Act, unless the seller required a certificate from the purchaser. One would Imagine, from what the hon. member from Brantford
has said, that the deputation had deliberately asked for the elimination of this clause altogether. They said that they would be glad to have it eliminated, but finally, when the matter simmered down, the amount of their request in the end was as I have said that we should reverse the certificate. I feel that I cannot go as far as that and that I must ask the committee to adopt the clause as it stands in the Bill.


Mr. WARD.: Is it the intention of the minister to press the Bill through the committee to-day? My reason for asking is this: Recently, at the request of a prominent seed dealer in my own county, I sent him a copy of the Bill. His desire was to send me his objections to it, and his suggestions for its improvements. In the course of a casual conversation with him, he presented to me many of the objections which have been brought before the committee this afternoon by my hon. friend from Brantford. I would, therefore, ask the minister not to press the Bill through the committee to-day so that I may have an opportunity of bringing my constituent's views, if not before the committee, at least before the minister, before the Bill passes the committee stage.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I do not wish to force things, but I would point out to my hon. friend that this Bill has been before the House now for nearly a month, that a good deal of the Bill was in committee before, and adopted some three weeks ago, that opportunity has been given for a full consideration of it, and that it is not at all likely that the gentleman to whom my hon. friend alludes is going to bring out anything new beyond what the delegation of seedsmen have already presented to me and what lias been presented to me in various representations made on their behalf. I do not wish to be in any way discourteous to my hon. friend, and I am not going to insist, but I would like him to consider these points.
I would like also to go on with the Bill this afternoon and propose some amendments which I have agreed to. It is quite possible that some of these may meet the views of my hon. friend's constituent. I do not . know, of course, what those views are, or what he proposes to suggest, but I can assure the committee that this subject has been threshed out now for nearly two years, that the seedsmen, collectively and individually, have appeared before me and have written to members and have presented their views over and over again, and that to-day I have modified the Bill very considerably so as to try and meet their objections. I have met nearly all their objections and they have expressed themselves to me, a number of them privately, as being quite prepared to go on with their business under the provisions of the Act as here printed with the amendments which I am going to propose. Having laid these points

before my bon. friend, I would promise not to take the Bill out of committee if be will not delay it in committee too long, because 1 wish to treat him with every consideration.


Henry Alfred Ward: I only ask to have it held over one day more in committee, and then, if I have no objections to offer, I shall not delay it further.


Mr. BARR.: This Bill affects two classes, the farmers and the seed merchants ; and while the seed merchants have waited on the minister in large numbers and presented their views to him, the contrary is the case with respect to the farmers, and consequently they are not in a position to receive that consideration which is given the seed merchants. I regret that the hon. minister did not see fit to accept the suggestion of the hon. member for Brantford (Mr. Oockshutt), and refer the matter to the Committee on Agriculture. That committee is particularly in a position to look after the interests of the farmer, and the farming interest is far more important than that of the seed merchants seeing that they outnumber the latter ten times. We are all aware that whilst we have received communications from almost every seed merchant in the Dominion, we have not heard to any considerable extent from the farmers, nor have the farmers in this House taken advantage of their position to look after the interests of their constituents as carefully as they should. Clause 2. as it stands, is a safeguard to the agricultural community, and I hope it will not be changed. I know that the seed buyers are putting forth every effort to have it changed and thus throw the responsibility from their own shoulders to those of the farmers. So far as the province of Ontario is concerned, the agriculturists there can do very well without the Bill, and it is not in the interests of that province. There may be stronger reasons in Manitoba and some other provinces why the Bill should be adopted, but what I wish to impress on the hon. minister is that no change should be made in this clause, and that the farmers be allowed to sell the one to the other without coming under the provision of this measure except indeed by their own consent. If you change this section, what will be the result ? A farmer might not understand the provisions of this Bill and give the purchaser a certificate which would bring him under its provisions and render him liable to heavy damages. I hope that the hon. minister will be firm as regards this clause, and I think it would be greatly in the interests of our farming community if this Bill should be sent to the Agricultural Committee. It must be remembered that our farmers are not in a position to send deputations to wait on the minister or to understand the proposed law and instruct their representatives as they should. It has been contended that Mr. FISHER.
the farmers should be placed in the same position as other people. In that contention, I do not agree. When one farmer desires to buy seeds from another, he is in a better position to judge of the quality of that seed by looking over the field while the crop was growing than he would be by testing the seed. And even buyers from a distance could inquire from other farmers whether there were obnoxious weeds in those fields from which the seed they are purchasing was taken, and in this way be in a better position to know what they are buying than if they went into a seed store.


Mr. OSDER.: The Bill, ns I understand, is intended to protect the buyer. Is not that the case ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Yes.


Edmund Boyd Osler: I shall not attempt to discuss the details of the measure as others more competent are in a better position to do this. But it strikes me that clause two is a reversal of the position which the minister has taken. In this particular clause the whole object is to protect the seller. But the farmer who raises the seed ought to know more about it than the man who buys from him, and the latter is the one you are trying to protect. A farmer may be a very large dealer in seed, practically a wholesale dealer, yet you are throwing the onus on the buyer no matter how small a quantity he may buy. The very fact that the seller is entitled to obtain from the buyer an acknowledgment that he is selling the seed under the provisions of this Bill implies a knowledge on the part of the seller that he understands its provisions.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: The seller here is protected only under certain circumstances and conditions, which are so different from these to which the rest of the Bill applies, that I think a change should be made. If the purchaser thinks he is running any risk, he can bring the transaction under the law or it cannot be completed.


Edmund Boyd Osler: The seller can do that. But the seller is the one likely to have the knowledge, rather than the farmer who buys.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: That might be so where the raising of the seed was as described by the hon. member for Brantford (Mr. Oockshutt). But this clause seeks to permit the ordinary small transactions that go on between farmers. If we put it in the form the hon. gentleman suggests, there is danger of great hardship. A farmer might even entice one against whom he had a grudge, or whom he wished to get into trouble, to violate the law inadvertently. As it is now, the buyer is protected if he wishes to protect himself ; but if he thinks he has enough knowledge of the transaction, he takes the responsibility. I would not like to change the clause.


Hr. BLAIN.: Would tlie minister give the committee any statement as to the proportion of total seed transactions that take place between farmer and farmer as against those that take place between the farmer and the seed merchant ? I have a letter that makes the statement that nine-tenths of the seed sold in Canada is sold by one farmer to another directly or through the medium of the local seedsman. X think it would be valuable information and would help us in this discussion, if the minister would tell us whether this estimate is correct.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I have no information on that point. The transactions that this clause provides for are so varied and so local that there is no possibility, so far as I know, of getting that.information. One man, for instance, happens to have a crop of better looking oats than his neighbour. His neighbour asks him to sell a few bushels, thinking that the seed will be better. That kind of transaction is provided for in this section. But I have no information on which to base a statement as to the proportion of such transactions as compared with those that take place between the farmer and the seedsman.


William Foster Cockshutt: The minister states that the farmer who buys from another farmer buys with his eyes open. But a man even with his eyes open cannot know what is in the seed. Even with a pair of ordinary glasses one cannot discern exactly the ' character of the seed-a powerful magnifying glass is often necessary. The statement that a man buys with his eyes open, therefore, does not affect the case, because he cannot know what is in the goods. Now, as to the remark of my hon. friend from Dufferin (Mr. Barr), whom X respect very highly, I would like to say a word. And, by the way, I was glad to see that hon. gentlemen opposite took note of my hon. friend's remark. It must be plain to hon. gentlemen opposite that we allow great liberty of opinion on this side. I trust that hon. gentlemen opposite will show equal independence and will freely speak their minds. If they do, I know, as a matter of fact, that a number of them will support me, for they do not believe in the features of this Bill. I do not think the minister has stated all the points concerning the deputation that waited upon him.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I did not refer to anything except points relating to the clause under consideration. Other matters I left for future discussion.


William Foster Cockshutt: But I think the minister has not stated even all that relates to the clause under consideration. I have it from one of the largest dealers in Canada, who was a member of the deputation, that the minister gave him to understand that he would reverse the order of procedure in
the clause to which I refer. That gentleman went home with the belief that the clause would be reversed. I can give the minister the name of this gentleman if he wishes, but I do not care to mention it in public. So far as that is concerned, the seedsmen asked that it should be reversed if it cannot be withdrawn. It is in the interest of all concerned that it should not be there. I submit that, and I will not take it back for anything we have heard yet. I will deal with the point of my hon. friend from Dufferin. I think he has only grasped the outside of the question, when he endorses this part of the Bill. Nine-tentlis of the seed grown in Ontario is grown for export. My hon. friend (Mr. Barr) says he wants the farmers to sell to one another. But they cannot sell more than one-tenth of what they grow. What is to become of the nine-tenths ? Is the farmer going to export it ? Is he in a position to export it, or even to send it to Manitoba and the Northwest ? It must, of necessity, go through the hands of the dealers. The dealer knows the transportation situation, he knows how to insure and how to handle the business generally. He has his agents all over the country. The dealer must handle the crop, or Ontario must cease growing it. If this clause remains it will prevent the dealers buying as much as they have been buying, and many farmers will be left with their seed on their hands. The farmer cannot sell to his neighbour, because there is no land upon which the seed can be planted. If my hon. friend from Dufferin will consider that point, I am sure that he will see that it is in the interest of dealer and grower alike that this seed should be handled. Therefore, I contend that the procedure provided by this clause should be reversed. It would not be considered neighbourly of a farmer to ask another to give him a writing; but unless the farmer specially asks for a writing he does not get it. If the minister will reverse the oi'der, and provide that the farmer is obliged to give a writing unless he specially negotiates that a writing shall not be given, the clause will be better than it is now. Under this clause it is all in the buyer's hands. The buyer, if he wants a certificate, is compelled to ask the seller to give him one. The farmer will not do that -he cannot do it. I wish to read a clause of the report of the British Committee of Agriculture that examined witnesses and discussed this whole subject. Dealing with this particular question, they say :
A considerable amount of seed Is also sold by farmers to each other. Farmers not having the appliances used by reguler seed merchants are unable to properly clean and winnow their seeds, but it is admitted that the price at which these seeds are sold not infrequently corresponds fairly accurately to their value.
That is, the seed is sold more cheaply because the farmer cannot clean it as the
dealer does. That goes to show that the
*

seed is best passed through the hands of the dealer. In regard to the cleaning of the seed I stated-and perhaps some hon. gentlemen were not present and not aware of the facts which were brought out more fully by the deputation-that there are many weed seeds that no machinery will entirely remove. I gave only one or two the other day, but experts, in the presence of the minister, stated that there were twelve or thirteen weed seeds that no machinery so far invented would entirely remove. The minister gave us to understand that a complete cleaning outfit could be obtained for $800, and that some fifteen concerns in the Dominion had such outfits. But one of the dealers stated in the presence of the minister that two years ago, after he had provided a complete outfit, he had to spend $2,500 in improving that outfit. And another dealer stated that he had a cleaning plant that cost him $8,000. There is a vast difference between $800 and $8,000. Therefore, I contend there is the difficulty that no grower can afford to put in that expensive machinery to clean it in the same way the dealer can. Furthermore, the minister did not deal with another important point. I pointed out that there is no safeguard there that a grower will handle his own seed only, but he may also handle his neighbours' seed. It is a fact that farmers often handle seed that they do not grow themselves. I know one or two notable Instances in my own county.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: My hon. friend will remark that if they do that, they will not come under the provision of this exemption at all.


William Foster Cockshutt: The minister did not explain that, and it does not appear to me that that thing is safeguarded. It says here ' seed that is grown on his own premises.' But who is to tell whether that farmer has sold only his own seed ? There is no one there who can tell, he may have bought it from his neighbour's field.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: He may know that to be a fact, and then he would not come under the operation of this exemption clause.


William Foster Cockshutt: Whether that is the case or not, it is down in black and white here that he may sell only seed that is grown on his own premises for seeding purposes. There is no safeguard in the Act to show that there is any other seed in that barn than the seed the man grew himself. Further, the minister failed to take up another point. I asked him this question, if I, as a dealer, also became a grower, can I sell from my barn seed that I cannot sell from my warehouse ? I might become a grower, many seedsmen are growers, and I want to know from the minister now whether a seedsman, who is generally a seed grower as well-because nearly every prominent seedsmen has a seed farm-if that Mr. COCKSHTJTT.
seedsman grows seed on his farm can he sell from his barn what he is forbidden by the Act to sell from his warehouse ? It may appear that he could. He becomes a farmer, and he can sell from his barn in the one case seed that he knows is less pui'e than the seed he sells from his warehouse, simply because under the Act he is classified as a farmer and as a grower. That is a very important point which the minister does not deal with, and it may be necessary for some dealers to handle the product from their barn instead of from their warehouse.
Now, I wish to refer again to the matter of labelling. I say that under this clause the minister is compelling a man to label the receptacle with all the imperfections that his seed contains-I think that is not right -with every weed seed that is in it, or that is named in that clause. Now he cannot take any chances, therefore he will be obliged to placard it in this way : This seed is clover seed, or timothy seed, or alsike, and it may contain the twenty-five named weeds-he would only be safe in naming them all, because he is not sure what is in it himself. You may examine every package and find it good on top, and you may put your hand a few inches lower down and you may strike ten weed seeds that you did not strike on the first handling. Every article you may mention may vary, because we know that the shifting of a sieve will throw certain lighter seeds to the top, and they congregate. Now, you may take one handling and say that is perfectly pure, and the next handling might have ten weed seeds in it. That may occur, and does occur to my own knowledge of the seed trade.
Now the placarding is a great hardship. The minister says you must placard everything but No. 1 seed. No. 1 seed, according to the Act, can be produced only in very limited quantities; therefore every dealer and grower that comes under the operation of this Act is obliged to label that with all the impurities that it contains. I say you cannot sell goods under those conditions. Is it a fair thing ? A seller usually places all the good qualities in front. The dry goods man sells a piece of dress-goods, the lady makes it up, Und she puts a lot of work into it, and says it will wash. But it does not wash, the colours do run. But the dress is made up, and there is an incidental damage against the dry goods man, in the same way that there is expected to be here incidental damages against the seedsman. Damages can be recovered now, damages are recovered now at law without this Seeds Act. I say it is unfair to ask any one to label all the imperfections in his goods on the outside. How can these seeds be sold in that way ? Still the minister obliges every one who has seed that comes under No. 1 grade to label it with all the imperfections it contains. I

submit that is not a fair proposition. I did not say the minister was a horse jockey, but I said that if he were obliged to label all the imperfections on a horse he knew of, he probably might not be able to sell it for what it was worth. So I say that if you label all the imperfections that bag con-' tains you are not likely to get anything like its value.


John Barr: I took the trouble to send this Bill, as many of them as I could find, to the seed dealers and also to the farmers in my riding. I have received several letters from farmers, and they say that they think they can get along very well without the Bill, though they think the object of the Bill is good. But they wish that their privilege be carefully guarded to sell to their neighbours if they wish to do so. X would like to ask if there is a member in tliis House who has received from any farmer in Canada a single intimation that this clause is not to their interest. In my opinion we should carefully guard their interest. I do not take much stock in that extract that was read by my hon. friend ; we can find those views almost any where. Nor do I take much stock in the statement that so large a number of seed dealers are farmers. If they are, then they have the provisions of this Bill to fall back upon, they have all the advantages that the farmers have. Therefore I do not think this is class legislation, and I submit again that we are only doing our duty in looking after the farmers' interests.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Like my hon. friend from Dufferin (Mr. Barr) I submitted this Bill to three seedsmen in my locality, men who sell 20,000 or 30,000 bushels a year ; and after looking it over carefully they did not think it was possible to continue their business and keep within the provisions of the law. Most of them admitted that if the Bill could be worked out it would be valuable, that it was desirable to have seed as clean as possible. One gentleman said that so far as he was concerned he would have to go out of the business. Now if these three seedsmen go out of the business, men who are shipping carload after carload of seeds from that locality, all of which is bought from the farmers, it must come back to the farmers, and if the farmer cannot get a market for his seed, he is put to a great disadvantage. Farmers in my locality realize year after year anywhere from $100 to $800 or $900 for seed raised on their farms. If that seed is not purchased by the dealers in the villages and towns in their neighbourhood, they will find it much more difficult to get purchasers from outside.
Then, there is some of the seed bought in this way and I mention this in answer to the statement of the hon. Minister of Agriculture : Men drive forty, fifty and sixty
miles to buy seed. I have seen three, four or five teams in one day from the immediate vicinity of Guelph coming up to buy seed. These men go out amongst the farmers and buy seed. They can buy two or three loads from some individual farmers. They make inquiries, it is trim, about the farms and where they are likely to get the seed they want, but they know nothing or very little about the seed that is raised on the farm nor does the buyer in the village, so that they cannot know much more than if they were buying it from the seedsman. Therefore, the statement the hon. minister made that when one farmer buys from (mother he does it with his eyes open and therefore is not going it blindly, is not a statement which is supported by the facts. That is the dilemma that I have in regard to the Bill. But. I rose more particularly to support the suggestion of the hon. member for Brantford (Mr. Cockshutt) because I think it is a good one though it seems rather late to make it. That is that the Bill should be sent to the Agricultural Committee and that parties should be brought here so that they might give their evidence upon it, if you like, both farmers and seedsmen. While I think it is a good thing and I would like to see it carried out if it can be made workable, I have no evidence before me that it is a workable measure and you can naturally understand the dilemma one is confronted with who is anxious that after we have spent our time and labour on the Bill it shall be a workable measure. If we can make it a workable measure it seems to me that it would not be labour in vain.


Edmund Boyd Osler: I would like to ask the hon. minister if in England or the United States the same conditions or something similar have prevailed ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: There is no legislation of this kind in England. The hon. member for Brantford (Mr. Cockshutt) referred to a report of a committee that was appointed to deal with this question in England. That report is five years old and the subject of seed analysis, laboratory work and seed legislation has advanced very much indeed since that time. That report was based largely on the idea in England that they should introduce a law upon the guaranteeing of seeds and the report wound up by saying that they could not see their way clear to recommending a law introducing the guarantee system. We are not attempting to introduce the guarantee system. The guarantee system obtains in several countries on the continent of Europe and works fairly well there, but the observation of it and its working there led us to believe that it would not be suited to the conditions of business in this country or to our people's genius and apparently the committee decided the same thing.


Edmund Boyd Osler: Is there any precedent in the United States ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: There is a law iu the state of Maine which is similar to this. I think in the United States also they have been discussing the question of the guarantee system but they have not adopted it yet and they have not proceeded yet in the direction of this Bill. Seed laboratory work and analysis have been carried on for a number of years in the United States and I think it has now reached a point where it can be made of practical use for the protection of farmers. A Bill of this kind would not be practicable unless there was a pretty well established system of laboratory analysis of seeds and until I was prepared to say that we had that here, and I do think that we have a pretty well equipped system, I would not insist upon the passage of a Bill of this kind. But, having reached the point which that science 1ms reached to-day, I do not think there is any doubt of the possibility of satisfactorily working a Bill of this kind. My hon. friend from East Grey (Mr. Sproule) says that he is quite willing to admit the principle of the Bill, but that the only question with him is the difficulty of working it, apparently basing this doubt upon the testimony submitted by the seed dealers that they would have to go out of business if this Bill is passed. A deputation of seed dealers came here to see me the other day. They made that statement and they brought with them a lot of samples. One gentleman brought a lot of samples of cereals which, under this Bill, be said he could not sell. Then the gentleman went down to the laboratory and he submitted to the laboratory the samples which he said he could not sell if this Bill were passed. Some of the samples he himself said he would not risk his reputation in proposing to sell. He submitted these samples to the laboratory* and there was not one of them that he could not sell under the Bill.


Edmund Boyd Osler: Then, the Bill is no good.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: If you want it stronger I will be very glad. I am perfectly willing to make it stronger. I have made it less strong in deference to the wishes of the seedsmen because they have raised such a row and put forward their pleas so vigorously. If the House will sustain me I will make the Bill more stringent at once.


John Barr: No, we will not do that.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: No. Well, I think I have struck the happy medium and that the Bill is about as good as it can be made at this day. I hope that after we have had some experience of this law, if it becomes law, we will be able to make it more stringent from time to time. I have said already, and I say again, that in the interest of the farmers and in the interest of clean agriculture in Canada, this Bill ought to be made more stringent. But this is a first step in that direction. In view of the fact that we have not had a Bill of this kind before, I am Mr. OSI-ER.
willing to adopt it as it stands, try it for a year or two and then make it more stringent as the condition of affairs in Canada improves under this legislation. Now, I want to continue what I was saying. These gentlemen are more afraid than they need be that they will be hurt by the passage of this Bill. These same gentlemen brought a lot of samples of grass and clover seeds. They were afraid that none of them could be sold under this law. They were avowedly not very good samples. They brought them to show that they were not good enough samples ; yet, I think, one half of these samples could be sold under this law as No. 1 and all of them could be sold. There was one sample that was avowedly a sample of screenings. The statements and representations which have been made on behalf of the seedsmen are not based upon proof of the condition of affairs.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: If they can sell everything but screenings under the Bill, what is the use of the Bill ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Even if that were the case I would be glad to stop the sale of screenings in this country, and if to-day our farmers are being tempted to buy screenings and seedsmen are selling screenings, I say we ought to pass a law to stop it and I am prepared to appeal to the House and the country on that question. The Bill, although it does not go so far as I would like, goes as far as the conditions of the trade to-day will permit without an undue and harsh interference with the trade. In consideration of the large body of respectable and honest seedsmen who do a legitimate, honest business and who are prepared to try and live up, as they can succeed in living up to the provisions of this Act when it is passed, I am prepared to pass the Act in its present lenient form, and to then trust to the future to make it more stringent. But, Sir, I confess that I am not ready to emasculate the Act and to make it absolutely worthless and then pretend that we are going to do any good by it in the direction of creating a clean agriculture in this country. If I should adopt the suggestions of the hon. member for Brantford (Mr. Oockshutt) and the frightened statements of certain statesmen, I would be emasculating the Act and I am not prepared, as the responsible minister who has to introduce legislation of this kind and put it through the House, to go further in the modification of this Bill than the amendments that I have suggested and which I intend to make to it. So far as I am concerned, I think with my hon. friend from Dufferin (Mr. Barr) that it is essential in the interests of the farmer's of the country that the section should pass as it is and I must ask the committee to make no amendment.


Mr. W. D. STAPLES (Macdonald).: As a new member of the House I did not intend to speak upon this Bill. I have listened

with great interest to the discussion of the Bill and to the criticisms that have been levelled against it, and I have come to the conclusion that as a farmer, since it has been called to my attention that the farmers of the House are not taking the interest in this Bill that they should take, it is possibly my duty to speak upon it. I have noticed during the discussion that in this House as in smaller gatherings we have two classes of farmers, tlie theoretical and the practical. If the hon. the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Fisher) is the practical farmer that the Liberal party have always claimed him to be, especially during the last election campaign, I am sure he will agree with me when I say that it is an easy matter to farm theoretically but that it is a different proposition to put those theories into practice. I am speaking only as a practical, or if you will allow the expression, an ordinary, common farmer. I have the -honour of representing in this House one of the largest and most prosperous agricultural districts in the province of Manitoba ; I think it is the largest and most prosperous constituency.


An hon. MEMBER.: Oh, no.


William D. Staples: My hon. friend says ' no,' but of course he represents another constituency in the province of Manitoba. Not only have I the honour of representing that great constituency, but I am sent here by the largest majority of any hon. member from that province, save and except, as I must, the Minister of the Interior (Hon. Clifford Sif-ton). As to how he rolled up his great majority, I am not going to say at the present moment, but I will go this far and say that if it had not been for the mean contemptible, shameless practices perpetrated upon the electors of the constituency of Macdonald, by simply taking a red pen and disfrancis-ing them, I would be here to-day with a larger majority than the Minister of the Interior.
If this Bill becomes law, are we putting anything on the statute-book that we have not at the present time ? I will state to the Minister of Agriculture that so far at least, as Manitoba is concerned, we are not. We have on the statute-book of Manitoba what is known as the Noxious Weed Act, which is more drastic-that is a nice term of the hon. minister-than the Bill presented here to-day and in order to prove that, I shall call attention to a couple of clauses in that Act. It appears to me that, so far as Manitoba is concerned, we are to-day wasting time. Sections 22 and 23 of the Noxious Weed Act of Manitoba are as follows :
Any such inspector may, during the day time, enter any store, shop, warehouse, mill, elevator or other premises occupied by any person who vends grain, grass or other seed for feed or seeding purposes, and may inspect such seeds or grain to ascertain if they contain any seeds of noxious weeds, and may take away a
sample of such grain, grass or other seeds if he considers it necessary for the purpose of establishing the fact that seeds of noxious weeds are contained among such grain, grass or other seeds.
Section 23 reads thus :
Any person who vends for seed or feed purposes any grain, grass or other seed, among which there is any seed of noxious weeds, shall be liable to a fine of not less than ten dollars nor more than one hundred dollars, and the magistrate may order that any grain, grass or other seed sold contrary to the provisions of this section shall be destroyed.
Now, Sir, I claim that so far as Manitoba is concerned we have all the protection not only as seedsmen but as farmers, that this Act purports to give, and I do not see that we can make any better law than that which exists in Manitoba. I will admit of course that all through his arguments the province of Manitoba has been dealt with as though it were a back number and was not worthy of consideration. In so far as the work of the Department of Agriculture and the gathering of statistics is concerned, I would say that Manitoba is well up to the mark, and in so far as the Noxious Weed Act is concerned, I think that these two clauses which I have just read will fully establish the fact that that province is quite up to the mark to-day. Notwithstanding that Act the farmers of Manitoba have not by any means the protection that we deserve from the Department of Agriculture of the Dominion of Canada. We require some means whereby we will be able to furnish not only the seedsmen, but the farmers of this country with the means of acquiring good, sound, clean seed. As to the method which will best bring this about, I agree with the suggestion of the hon. member for Brantford (Mr. Cockshutt) who has proposed that this question should be referred to an agricultural committee. I think that is the proper place for this discussion, where we farmers can get together-and it will not take a very large room to hold the farmers in this House for there are only 24-notwithstanding the fact that three-fourths of the population of Canada are farmers and paying three-fourths of the taxes of this country. Not quite a fair representation, and I am sure that if the farmers and the seedsmen meet together we can make some progress. Let us get to work and see if we cannot, together with the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Fisher) succeed in laying down a fundamental basis whereby we can put within easy reach not only of the farmers, but also of the seedsmen, good clean seed. This can be done, there is no doubt about it, if we would follow out the lines suggested by an hon. member of this government during the last election who thought that it would be to the interests of his party to go to the west and give us one or two addresses, I refer to the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Sir Richard Cartwright). While I do not agree

with ali the remarks he made, still I always try to be fair, and he did make some suggestions which if applied to the seed ques-i tion so that we can get good clean seed, would, II think be of great benefit. He said that he thought the time had come when, there should be established throughout Cam ada, small model farms. If these model farms were established and brought under the supervision of the Minister of AgricuH ture, I do not see why we could not equip them in such a manner-and I do not know; that it would be a very expensive operation; after all-that we would be able to accomplish the object which I hope the hon. Minister has in view in submitting this Bill. I do not know that there is any serious oLh jection to the Bill, from the farmers' point of view, so far as it goes ; but it does not go far enough, and it does not put the responsibility upon the proper persons. It is the Department of Agriculture that should be responsible for the supply of clean seed. I believe that if we got together, we could succeed, with the good judgment of the hon. minister, in mapping out and putting into operation the requisite facilities for placing within easy reach of the farmers and seedsmen of this country the good, clean seed which we as farmers are deserving of, and the seedsmen as well.


Mr. M. S. SCHELL (South Oxford).: As a practical farmer, who lives on a farm and is interested in farming operations, I have taken a deep interest in the discussion of this question, when it was before the House a few days ago, when it was discussed by the deputation of seedsmen who waited upon the minister, and as it has been presented before us to-day by the various speakers who have addressed the House. In the discussion that has taken place there has been very little real criticism against the Bill. Some points have been touched upon slightly-for instance, the provision in regard to the fines that may possibly be imposed; but I believe the minister proposes to amend the clause respecting the fines. So far as the object of the Bill is concerned, I am confident that the more carefully we consider its 1 revisions, the more convinced we shall be that they are not at all too stringent. The first thought was that it was probably too complicated for the legal points in regard to its enforcement to be readily determined; but I presume that it has been made as clear and as easy of interpretation as the lawyers who have had it in hand could make it. The provisions of the Bill, I am sure, are not at all too stringent. Our country is too much overrun with foul weeds, and anything that is done with the view of curtailing their dissemination is in the interest of agriculture in this Dominion. I listened the other day to the deputation of seedsmen who presented the arguments from their standpoint in the strongest possible way ; and yet, when they considered Mr. STAPLES.
the situation carefully and candidly, I think that they themselves realized that the Bill was a pretty fair measure, and not one that would operate seriously against their business. Their fear that the Bill would hurt their business seemed to be greater at the introduction of their case than it was at the conclusion of the interview; and I believe that if the Bill is passed as now proposed, the seedsmen will not have much reason to complain. The objection has been raised against allowing farmers to sell seed to their neighbours, that such seed would not be fit to be sown ; but we know that neighbouring farmers are thoroughly conversant with the nature of the soil and the foul weeds liable to be grown on each other's farms. The farmers themselves are desirous of getting the best possible seed, and are usually as capable as any other class of the community of guarding their own interest ; and, while it may seem to be giving a farmer somewhat of a privilege to sell seeds to his neighbour in this way, I do not think that as a rule he is going to abuse the privilege. It has been stated that ninety per cent of the seed grown in Canada is exported. If so, it is important that we should have some regulation of that seed as well as of the ten per cent which is sold at home. Of the members on the opposition side who have spoken on this Bill, I notice that those who have been longest in the House have said but little. I believe that they recognize the reasonableness of the Bill, and I bilieve that the House as a whole regard it uot only as a Bill that should be passed, but as one that has been framed moderately and in such a way as will conduce to cite protection of the farmers of this country, conserve the interests of the seed trade, and, while not perhaps as stringent as it should be. will in a large measure help the agricultural industry, especially this particular branch of it.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: The hon. member for Macdonald (Mr. Staples) has alluded to the local law of the province of Manitoba. I know that Act, and I hope that it is uoing good work there. I hope that the government of Manitoba is enforcing it.


William D. Staples: They cannot enforce it.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: If that is the case, I think we had better have a Dominion Act that we can enforce. I am sorry that the hon. gentleman says that his government cannot enforce their Act; I am sorry that he confesses their weakness in that respect. But I was going to ask him, in his strength as a member from Manitoba, to be merciful to us who do not belong to that province, and allow us to pass an Act which will apply to other parts of the Dominion, and to Manitoba as well; because the farmers of Manitoba are equally interested in this matter with the farmers of the other parts of the Dominion. This Act does not undertake

to do what cannot be done or what we cannot enforce In a reasonable, moderate and judicious way; and I am satisfied that if this Bill becomes law, it will be enforced. I appreciate what my hon. friend from South Oxford (Mr. Schell) has said. I believe he has expressed the judgment of the House in general, the desire of the farmers, and the feeling of the seedsmen. The deputation of seedsmen came here a good deal frightened, and determined, I think, to get all they could in the way of modifications; but after the explanations which were given at the meeting and afterwards in the seed laboratory, in regard to the way in which the Act would work out. the statement was made to me by one of the most important of those who spoke on the question, that although he would have liked this particular clause to have been modified in the way suggested, he believed that if the Act were passed they would be abl6 to carry on their business and would go on with their business. I must ask the committee to adopt this third clause and then go on to the consideration of those amendments which, as the hon. member for South Oxford (Mr. Schell) has indicated, I am quite prepared to make, in the general interests, after considering the representations of the seedsmen.


Mr. CLEMENTS.: Speaking from a farmer's standpoint and as one always anxious to promote the interests of the farmers, I think that the suggestion thrown out by the hon. member for Brantford (Mr. Cockshutt) should be adopted and this Bill referred to the Agricultural Committee. When it was first introduced, I sent copies to every district, and nearly every reply I have received from both sides indicates that the Bill is wholly unworkable. That is my opinion also. I should regret very much to have to vote against the Bill if X thought it was in the interests of the farmers and would be only too glad to support any measures in their interests, I care not who might bring it in. But as the measure, I believe, is neither in the interests of the farmers not the seedsmen, I think we are losing very much valuable time discussing it, and that it should be rather sent to the Agricultural Committee where it could be more satisfactorily dealt with.


William D. Staples: We have a law at present in Manitoba on this same subject, but it has not proved adequate to prevent the spreading of noxious weeds, simply because we have not the proper facilities for growing and for cleaning the seeds, and until we get these facilities within easy reach of the farmers we are bound to suffer from this evil. You are going, if this measure passes, to inflict upon the people of Manitoba the cost of enforcing a law similar to the provincial one now in existence, and I do not believe that the staff of officers to be provided under this Bill will prove any more
efficient than those we have at present in Manitoba.


Mr. A. A. McLBAN.: I would like to be informed by the hon. minister whether the Act passed by the legislature of Manitoba was outside the jurisdiction of that province ? If so, has this parliament the right to pass the Bill now before us, which is dealing with a similar object ? It may be that this Bill is ultra vires and that all we have the power to do is to appoint inspectors as is done with regard to our fisheries.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I cannot pretend to be an authority on legal questions, but I know that this Act affects a matter of commerce and consequently is within the powers of this parliament, and I have the opinion of the Department of Justice to that effect. It was introduced by a resolution because it deals with trade and commerce.


Mr. T. MARTIN.: As I represent a constituency of farmers and have had something to do with the buying and sealing of seed, I feel It my duty to give some expression to my views on this important measure. There is nothing to-day which gives our farmers more trouble and costs them more, without any return, than weeds, and if we can do something to eradicate this nuisance, we certainly ought to do it. As the hon. member for Brantford has told us, the deputation the other day which waited on the minister consisted of practical men, but they were practical men on one side and one side only. The opposition to this Bill has been all from that side. The object of the Bill is to afford relief to the farmers, not the seedsmen. I do not believe that we should do anything in this House to injure any man. But, if we refuse to give the farmers protection against the spread of weeds, and have no reason for it except that the dealers have not cleaners or something of that kind, we are of very little use here. The deputation that waited on the minister were very anxious to have this Bill laid over. I have no doubt that from the standpoint of their business that was all right. But this is an excellent Bill, in my opinion. If there is anything wrong with it, it is that it does not go far enough. We should not delay an hour in passing it. I wonder that such a measure as this was not placed on the statute-book many years ago. The hon. member for Brantford (Mr. Cockshutt), judging from his remarks, I should say, has not had much to do with farming. And hon. members, as, for instance, the hon. member for North Perth (Mr. MacLaren) in asking that this Bill be laid over, speak from the seedsman's point of view. I claim as a representative of the farmers that we ought to pass a law of this kind.


Mr. MACLAREN.: I rise to a point of order. I did not make the statement that I spoke on behalf of the seedsmen, but I

said that I had a letter from a seedsman on this subject. I advocated sending the Bill to the Committee on Agriculture, that it might be discussed and that all those who are interested might be heard.


Thomas Martin: I sent copies of this Bill to fifteen or twenty farmers in the constituency I have the honour to represent, asking their opinion upon it. I have had a good number of answers, and, without exception those answers have been favourable to the Bill. These farmers are my friends on both sides of politics and fairly represent the general run of farmers of this country. The hon. member for Brantford does not give the farmers credit for any intelligence; but I can tell the hon. gentleman that the farmers are just as intelligent and just as alert in promoting their own business as are the representatives of any other business interest of the country. If the hon. gentleman believes that a farmer would buy seed from his neighbour without inquiring or without knowing what that seed was like, the only conclusion I can come to is that the hon. gentleman has not mixed enough with farmers to know how careful they are in guarding their own interests. If the Bill is to be changed at all, I would suggest to the Minister of Agriculture that it should be changed so as to provide that these packages or bags shall be labelled with red ink and with letters so large that he that runs may read. If the seedsmen are scattering through this country seed upon which they are afraid to put on the name of the weeds contained therein, the sooner that seed is burned the better for the Dominion of Canada. I am sure the hon. member for Brantford has never figured up what weeds cost this country. The spread of weeds means millions of dollars ; and we are throwing this money away because a few seedsmen believe they cannot clean their seed. I understand that the seed which has been tested, 65 per cent of it will grade No. 1. I would .also call the attention of the committee to the fact that the Bill, as I read it, has not a word in it to prevent seedsmen going on in the business of exporting seed as they have been doing. The hon. gentleman tells of a horse that could not be sold because he was branded. Well, if his horse was so foul, I would put him in the same place as I would put the seed.


William Foster Cockshutt: I desire to say a word or two in regard to the debate so far as it has gone. The minister rather cast an imputation on the report of the British Committee on Agriculture from which I read, giving members to understand that it was obsolete. Well, it bears the date 1901, the date of the minister's census, all the volumes of which have not yet been published. It seems to me that the minister at least should regard it as comparatively new ; and I think that members of the House generally will be inclined to ac- . cept it. If the minister has the confidence in his Bill that he claims, he has nothing to fear in sending it to the Committee on Agriculture. I am anxious for a full and open discussion ; I want the thing to be considered from the standpoint of all concerned. Let all come forward and state their views. If the committee report favourably on the Bill, if any committee that professing to know the needs of the farmer and the dealer approve this measure, I am prepared to withdraw my opposition. Now, a word to the hon. member for North Wellington (Mr. T. Martin). I am sorry to see that the hon. gentleman has escaped from the chamber. He advocated painting these packages red. Well, I think the hon. gentleman left us no room to doubt his party proclivities ; I think he is entitled to the very first place as a party man. As a party man, I would paint him red. He has accepted the whole Bill without regard to criticism. He suggests that I know nothing about farming. I think I know at least as much about farming as the hon. gentleman does. I was brought up largely on a farm, and have spent at least twenty summers on a farm. I am pretty well known to the farmers, and would have no fear in going before the farmers and saying exactly what I have said in this House.
I have discussed this matter with farmers, and I speak the opinions of many farmers in my district. If the Bill goes through it will hit the farmer harder than anybody else. If I did not believe that so strongly, you may be sure I would not stand up here so often to declare it. The Bill will take away the big business the farmer has in seed growing. I do not know whether my hon. friend (Mr. T. Martin) who professes to know so much about farming has looked into that matter or not, hut seed-growing is a great source of revenue to the farmers of Ontario. The hon. member for South Oxford (Mr. M. S. Schell) showed a disposition to sw'allow his own opinions as a party man. He would regulate not only the selling of the ten per cent of seed that is sold, in this country but of the ninety per cent that is sold in foreign countries. Why cannot he trust the foreign countries to look after themselves ? If we are sending seed abroad that won't pass the test in this clause, it will not be received. I mention-, ed in this House the other day that the seedsmen, when they came down on tSat deputation, stated that the seeds raised in the province of Ontario are the best in the world. Now what better can you have under the Bill than that ? Are you going to destroy that trade that has been built up with great difficulty ? It is going to take away from the farmers of Ontario alone a revenue of probably $2,000,000 per annum, because Ontario is the seed grower, none


Alexander Ferguson MacLaren: 

But I tell the minister again that when! that deputation went away the other dayl it was with the understanding that he was going to reverse that clause. I would like the minister to say whether or not he or hid deputy did give that deputation to under! 'stand that he was going to do that. He said, as far as I understood him, that he would do it ; and I was told by one of those who! formed part of that deputation that he understood it was going to be done. I am not here to mention names, but I was told thisl by an lion. gentleman sitting on the otheil side of the House, and I believe he spoke the truth when he said he believed this parti-* cular clause was going to be reversed. Bull the minister now comes down and says that he will stand by it, he will die in the diteb with it rather than change it, it is going through just as it is. If he does that, hel will wrong that deputation, he will wrong) the gentlemen who went away with that impression, and who would be here again| to-day to press upon the minister the injustice of this Bill if they supposed it was not going to be revised. I believe the Post-) master General himself knows something about this Bill, I believe he has been seen; about it; why does he not speak ? I know) that some gentlemen waited on him, whyl does not the Postmaster General say what he knows about it ? Where is our hon. friend fiom Centre York (Mr. Campbell) ? Hej knows something about the objections to this Bill. Where are these gentlemen, and why don't they stand up now ? Are they going to be so hide bound that they will swab low a Bill that is going to do an immense! injustice to the trade, to the growers, to! the agriculturists of this country ? Are they! simply going to bolt it down because it is! a party measure, instead of threshing it out and making it a credit to the country and to parliament ? I trust that the minister will! take into consideration all these grave objections that have been made to his Bill; and revise it along the lines that thev point out.
At six o'clock, committee took recess.
After Recess.
Committee resumed at eight o'clock.


Robert Laird Borden: 
Mr.  R. E.@: BORDEN, It applies to more than that, does it not ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: It would apply also to any seed held for sale in the Dominion of Canada, whether for export or not.


William Foster Cockshutt: 


Robert Laird Borden: I would like to know what the hon. minister's amendment is before we leave this section.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: After section 7, which my hon. friend "will see provides for certain exemptions from the provisions of the Act, I propose to add a clause ' d ' :
Seed marked as screenings and held or sold for export only.
By the first section of section 7, as my hon. friend will see, the provisions of the Act will not apply to this class of seed. The seedsmen say that they would like to sell abroad the refuse which they could not sell in Canada under this Bill. Any seed which is sold to the foreign markets as Canadian seed would have to live up to the provisions of this Bill, but if they can find a market abroad for this class of goods, and if it is sold as screenings, I am willing that it should be exported, and therefore I am adding this amendment ; otherwise the Act would apply to seed either sold for export or held for export.


Mr. HENDERSON.: I do not rise to offer any opposition to the Bill ; I do not claim to be a sufficient judge of what would be required : but I would like to know whether I properly understood the minister when he was speaking with reference to the deputation which waited upon him. It appears that they had certain samples of seed which they showed to the minister, and which were placed under test. The minister, as I understood, said this afternoon that all of these seeds were such as could be sold under this Act, with the exception of one sample.
I simply rise to ask if I correctly understood the minister.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Yes, except that they were not shown to me, but were taken to the laboratory and examined by the officer of the department in the laboratory. I did not myself personally see them at all.


David Henderson: Well, then, it seems to me that there is not that very great demand for this measure that I at first thought there was. That is all the opinion I have to express about it.


Mr. JOHN HERRON (Alberta).: There is one feature of this Bill of which I am somewhat afraid. I believe the Bill is honestlv intended to benefit the farmers of this country, but I believe that its effect will be just the opposite, owing to the creation of a monopoly. For instance, in an outlying district, say in Alberta, where I live, you will have a large settlement and a small town in which there are three or four merchants dealing in seed. You will, under present conditions, have good opposition among them, and every one consequently gets seeds at a reasonable price. Supposing that this Act comes into operation, and that there is only one merchant in the town able to put in a plant capable of cleaning

the seed and extracting the noxious weed seeds. Will that not throw the business into the hands of one man, who will have the advantage of a monopoly, while the farmers will have to pay more than they otherwise would, and will not its evil effect in this way he greater as against the interests of the farmers in, general than the evils arising under the present system . There is another feature of the Bill to which I would call attention. A farmer will get a small price for his seed gram. Many farmers make considerable money by selling seed grain of a fairly good sample, but if this law takes effect they will be afraid to sell this as clean grain, and therefore they will be compelled under the law to sell it to the one merchant who has the machinery for cleaning it. In that way, the control of the whole seed trade of the district will pass into that man's hands, and this will be an injury to the farmers.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I think the usual competition of trade would obtain there as elsewhere. I am not familiar with the conditions in the district of my hon. friend (Mr. Herron), but I think probably agencies would be established almost immediately for the sale of seeds by the larger seed merchants of Winnipeg and other places in the western country or in Ontario, who are already selling seed pretty largely all over the Dominion. I think that the demands of trade and competition would rectify such a condition.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: How does the minister expect to enforce or carry into operation the provisions of this Act ? Does he expect to appoint inspectors throughout the farming districts of Canada, or by what machinery does he propose to render effective the so-called drastic provisions of this Act ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I suppose my hon. friend was not in the House when I explained that before ?


Arthur Cyril Boyce: I was not.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: In the first place, any one who is aggrieved can take out an action ; the Bill provides a penalty, &c. In the second place, I have a certain staff who are engaged in the seed laboratory in the investigation of the seed conditions all over the country. This staff to-day is composed of the chief of the division and, I think, five men under him. During the winter season, and I think most of the time, these officials work in the laboratory, some of them would all the time. But during the summer I have had one of them in the Northwest, one in Ontario, one in Quebec and one in the maritime provinces, investigating the conditions of the seed trade. If any circumstances arose which indicated a violation of the law, and it appeared that there was no action taken by individuals, I would consider it the duty of these men to try and 38}
enforce it; but I have no desire or intention to appoint a corps or staff of inspectors over the country, and I do not think it is at all necessary. I am satisfied that the passage of this Act, and the knowledge of the fact in the minds of the people engaged in this trade, will bring about the results which the Act is intended to secure.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: Do I understand the minister to say that beyond the staff he now has, he will not require to appoint any officers for the enforcement of the provisions of this Act, nor will he ask for any appropriation for that purpose ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I do not expect to do so.
I cannot of course tell what developments may take place, and cannot bind myself with regard to the future ; but so far as the appointment of inspectors under the Act is concerned, I do not intend to ask for any appropriation for that purpose this session.


Mr. CARYELL.: I have listened to'the discussion this afternoon on this question, and, while not a practical farmer, I represent a farming constituency, and I have observed that the discussion has been nearly altogether from the standpoint of the seed merchant and to some extent from the standpoint of the province of Ontario. I have heard two or three speeches from gentlemen from the west, but not a word as yet from the maritime provinces. I would therefore like to discuss this measure for a few moments from the standpoint of a maritime member, and one of the representatives of the maritime farmers. I can assure you that there is no question of so much importance to the maritime farmers to-day as the seed question. We have attempted for some years to improve the quality of the seeds we have to use. We cannot tell why, but it is a fact that we do not raise our own grass seeds to any great extent in the maritime provinces. We are compelled to purchase them mostly from the province of Ontario, and it seems almost impossible for a farmer to get a good quality of grass seeds. He can prepare his land for a crop of wheat or any other grain, and the crop will be fairly free from weeds ; but the next year after he uses Ontario grass seed, he will probably have more sorrel in his crop than timothy or clover. Our farmers have taken various courses in their efforts to overcome this difficulty. They have banded themselves together in societies and have imported the seed direct; our merchants have tried to get good seed for them ; but no matter what we do, it seems impossible to get good results, Now, it seems to me that this Bill is exactly in the right direction. It has been described here this afternoon, I think by the hon. member for Brantford (Mr. Cockshutt), as a drastic measure ; I think he almost: went so far as to say it was vicious legislation, and he did say that it was

legislation unprecedented in the annals of any civilized country. Well, Sir, if this Bill *will be the means of overcoming some of the difficulties under which the farmers of this country are suffering in connection with the purchase of their grass seed, then Canada will have the distinction of being the first civilized country which has tried to grapple with this question. I cannot see any difficulty in the way of working it out. It seems to me that it, would be nonsense to appoint a staff of inspectors to enforce the Act. If it is going to be useful to the farmers, they will find the means of working it out. If it become law. we in the province of New Brunswick will do so, whether they will in the province of Ontario or not. We will simply get some farmer to take a sample of the grass seed which he has purchased from his local merchant, and have it tested, and if it does not come up to the requirements, we will lay an information against the local merchant and see where the trouble is. You may say that this will be a hardship on an innocent merchant. By no means, because by subsection 2 of section S, if the merchant be able to show that the package has not been broken, and that he has purchased it in good faith, and gives the name of the merchant in Montreal or Toronto from whom he has bought the seed, the onus will fall back upon the latter.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: But the farmer is mulcted in the costs of the transaction.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: What would the costs amount to ? Perhaps a couple of dollars iu the police court.
no injustice will be done to anybody, but that great benefit will be done to the farmer who. purchases seed, and in the end we shall have better seed and better agriculture. Therefore in my humble opinion this legislation is in the proper direction and should pass this House.


Mr. WALSH.: Before this section passes, I would like to ask for a little information. I am not going to say that I am a farmer, like some hon. gentlemen who have spoken, and who remind me of a man who. at a meeting, said that he was a farmer. Tht man who spoke after him said that that was not necessary, as one only required to look at him to see that he was a farmer. He said it reminded him of a story of a man who boasted of having been brought up on the farm. ' In fact.' he said, ' I have been nurtured between two hills of corn ; ' and an old gentleman in the front seat spoke up and said, ' A pumpkin, begosh.' Before If discuss the Bill, I want to bring to the attention of the hon. minister a remark which he made, and which I am sure I only need to bring to his attention to have him withdraw. One speaker made a comparison between selling a horse and selling seed, and the minister said that the man who sold seed was an honourable man, thereby implying that the man who sold a horse was not. In my constituency we deal largely in horses, and I believe the farmers there are thoroughly honest. They make as much money out of selling horses as they do out of selling grass seed, because they do not deal in grass seed. The minister told us that the Bill does not require the farmer to


Mr. GANONG.: And the cost of hiring a ten-dollar lawyer.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: Whatever they are, he has to pay them.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I appreciate the solicitude which my hon. friends have for the poor farmer, especially the solicitude of my hon. friend from Charlotte (Mr. Ganong) for the farmer who gets into the hands of the lawyers. When the farmer gets into trouble, he is the first man who goes to a lawyer for protection. If the merchant who sells the seed has violated the Act, then he is the man who should pay the penalty. Now, the trend of opinion seems to be that this Bill does not go far enough, because it does not make the farmer liable. That would be a hardship, because he cannot supply himself with the plant necessary to separate the seeds, which costs from $800 to $1,000. But he can go to a seed merchant, who Is, in a position to supply the plant and have the seeds properly examined ; and if the seed merchant will not take the trouble to have the seeds properly examined. and palms them off on the country as pure seed, then he is the man who should pay the costs. It seems to me that


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: give u ceruucate oi rue seen ne sens, because he is not in a position to say whether the seed is pure or not ; but, on the other hand, he tells us that the farmer who buys from his neighbour is protected because he knows the kind of seed his neighbour is growing. If the man who owns the farm does not know "whether his seed is pure or not, how can his neighbour? The discussion has hinged principally on grass and clover seed. That does not apply to the farmers in my section, because they do not grow it. We are more interested in cereals. We have flat land surrounding the river, which grows giain and, back of that rising ground which is good for pasture ; but they do not gow sufficient grain to feed the stock which the dairy industry requires. I give the minister credit for being a great help in the way of introducing silos and other improvements, but I am not quite sure about the effect of this Bill. If a man from the highlands comes down to the level to buy seed grain, I understand the minister to say that the farmer from whom he buys is not bound to give a certificate that that grain is pure unless he is asked to do so. But if he is asked to do so and is not in a position to give such a certificate, then he loses the sale of his seed. I am not making any factious oppo-

sition, but would be glad to join hands with the hon. minister in doing anything which would curtail the sale of impure seeds, but I would like to be in a position to know whether this measure is workable.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: This section relieves the farmer from responsibility if he sells seed on his own premises, which he raised himself, to another farmer who intends using it himself and does not intend selling it again.' The buyer will have to use his own judgment, and if he has any doubt about the seed, be can ask that it be sold to him subject to the provisions of this Bill.
On section 8-penalties ; liability of purchaser in good faith ; report by magistrate.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I beg to move, in amendment to this clause, that it read : ' Shall be liable, for the first offence, not exceeding $1, and each subsequent offence not ex-< ceeding $5, together with the cost of prosecution, for each receptacle, package, sack or bag, but the total amount of the fine in the case of a first offence shall not exceed $5 and, in the case of a second, $25.' I am making these modifications to meet the representations of the seedsmen, who complain that in certain circumstances a very heavy penalty might be imposed, altogether out of proportion to the offence, if the clause were not modified. The infliction of a penalty is not so much what is desired as a deterrent, as the exposure of bad seed and conduct contrary to law.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: I would suggest to the hon. minister the insertion in the second line of section 8, after the word ' person ' the word ' knowingly.' That would considerably minimize the harshness of this penal clause.' It would also carry out the idea of the minister, who has expressed the desire that this measure might, while being made effective, bear as lightly as possible in the way of penalties. A reading of the penal sections will show that it is quite within the range of probability that some farmer, unacquainted with the working of the law, might have Ms ignorance taken advantage of by those anxious to avail themselves of a literal construction of the Act. Therefore, I think it would be only just that the penalties should be enforced only in clear cases of a wilful infraction of the law.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I think the Introduction of that word would make the prosecution for violation of the Act altogether too difficult. The second part of this clause provides machinery by which a person who has been selling impure seeds may throw the responsibility back on the person who supplied Mm, if he has been acting innocently or through inadvertence. But, if we were obliged to prove that the Act was wilful and with knowledge in all instances, we would leave the door open to carelessness ; and I think that one of the most important effects
of this Act will be to make those who are dealing in seeds careful of what they do. It is true that such a case as my hoiu friend mentions might arise, but I think the magistrate has sufficient latitude in his judgment and the fines and penalties are so lowl that it would not work any practical hardship at all.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: I would point out that this is peculiarly a case where a guilty knowledge should be made essential to a successful prosecution. We have many offences in our code in which the word ' knowingly ' is the very essence of the offence. Surely in this case, having regard to the peculiar wording of sections 3, 4 and 6 this would be an important word to insert. Take the case to which the minister refers. Under subsection 2 of section 8, if the accused proves to the magistrate that the liackage was purchased directly from a seed merchant domiciled in Canada and not opened, and the state of the seed not altered while in his possession, and that he had no reason to believe-that is, -was without a guilty knowledge-that the seed did not conqily with the provisions of the Act, he throws the responsibility back upon the person from which he purchased it. But though we find his innocence may protect this man to a certain extent, it does not make him free from having the conviction recorded against him and being mulcted in the costs of prose-' cution. If the word ' knowingly ' or the word 'wilfully' be inserted, it would render it difficult-justly difficult-to obtain a conviction.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: In what position would a clerk in a seedsman's store be who sold impure seed while innocently acting as the agent of another?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Section 9 provides for that.


Mr.  R. I.@: Has the minister had under consideration the advisability oh making provision for different fines in proportion to the quantity of seed involved. As has been pointed out, the word ' receptacle ' is very comprehensive. The receptacle may contain bushels of seed. To impose a fine of $1 for having that quantity of foul seed on hand, and a similar fine for having in possession the smallest package that did not come up to the requirements of the statute seems hardly reasonable. It may be difficult to cover this point; I think perhaps it would be; but the legislation as it stands seems somewhat incongruous.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: The fine is not fixed ; it is only provided that it shall not exceed one dollar. The case my hon. friend (Mr. It. L. Borden) has in mind I suppose, is where an inspector, entering a premises, finds seed not up to the requirements of the law held for sale. I think it is not usual for a seedsman to sell a bin full of seed. The seed is generally put up in bags or

receptacles of some kind. I should thinki "receptacles' means a bln or barrel or what* ever it may be in which the seed is held in) the store. The prosecution for holding seed for sale contrary to the Act would not be very common, I take it. X think it would hardly be well to provide a multiplicity of penalties.


Robert Laird Borden: It is desirable to have it as simple as possible in the first instance. There is one other point. The man who has purchased and who sells in good faith may be put to the costs of a prosecution, although absolutely innocent. He escapes in part by throwing the responsibility back on the party from whom he purchased. But how are you going to work that out and get at the guilty party? The name of the person who sold him the seed is sent forward with the date of the sale. But I do not understand how the minister intends to deal with the question of punishing the original seller. Does he intend tc have prosecutions originated by the department?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I think that would be a proper ease for the department to take up. And that is why subsection 3 requires that a report of every case be sent to the department. Still, that does not affect in any way the person who is attacked. Supposing he is a country dealer who has been attacked under the law by a farmer. The dealer proves that he is not guilty. He can himself proceed against the person who sold the seed, and the. proof he submitted in his own defence would help in proving that the person who sold him the seed was guilty. His reputation would suffer unless he defended himself. My idea is that in cases of that kind the department would take up the case, and I provide machinery giving more time in such cases than is provided under the Summary Convictions Act.


Robert Laird Borden: It is not likely the dealer could be re-imbursed himself. The man who sold the seed might be liable civilly


Sydney Arthur Fisher: That would be outside of this Act.


Robert Laird Borden: The original seller might live a thousand miles away and in another province, and it would hardly be worth while, for the small costs to which the dealer would be subjected to enter an action. What I intended to suggest was that the Act will fall altogether short of its object if you simply permit the inno cent dealer to be subject to some punish nvent in the shape of the costs of prosecution, and let go free the man who is absolutely responsible in the first instance.


Mr. WM. WRIGHT.: Will that apply to garden seeds ?	'


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Mr. FilSHER. No. The hon. gentleman; will see that by this section it applies to seeds of cereals, grasses, clover or forage plant.


William Wright: I have listened with a good deal of interest to this discussion, and I must confess that I am considerably at sea with regard to the probable outcome! of the Act. I know there are a number of practical farmers in this House, gentlemen-who probably have a practical knowledge! of this subject, and I do not see any good reason why the minister should be unwilling to refer this Bill to the Committee on Agriculture of which they form a part. The very case which is now before the House is one which that committee is well fitted to deal with, and if they are not competent to deal with questions of this kind, they might as well be disbanded. Now we have a number of practical farmers on the floor of the House who have given their views on this subject, and we also have what are called gentleman farmers, farmers that have probably never done any farm work at all except a little milking in the very early part of their lives.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order.


William Wright: Now, Sir-, there are many difficulties in the way of this legislation. Of course I am in favour of anything that will be of general assistance to the farmers, but on principle, I am opposed to class legislation. I have watched its effect with regard to many other things, and I do not know that I have ever seen any good come out of it. If it could be shown that some good would come out of this legislation, I would be glad to support it, and to do all in my power to, make it workable. But I am a little doubtful about it. I have tried to think out what its probable results would be, and from what practical knowledge of farming I have, having been raised on a farm, and having also some knowledge of the grain and seed business, I see many difficulties in the way. There wilt be many cases where men will be mulcted in costs, if not in fines, without any intention or knowledge of doing anything wrong, even though they are the most careful men in the world. It seems to me it is placing the burden of proof on the seedsmen. You tell them to keep a record of sales they have made of seeds at any time to farmers: That is one of the difficulties I foresee. You know! how difficult it is to keep 'track of seeds which you have in a store. Suppose you have bags of various kinds of seeds sitting in a row, and a person comes along and puts his hand into the bag and takes a handful and looks at it, and then he goes along and does the same in another bag. How easy it would be for him to transfer seeds from one bag into another. I have seen that done, and if this Bill passes men

can be fined for having this seed in possession. I believe that inside of five years, if this legislation passes^ it will become obsolete, it will become a dead letter on the statute-book, deader than that old horse, thirty-two years old, that was in Queen's Park, Toronto.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: I would again call upon the minister to consider with that leniency which he desires to show towards men prosecuted under the main clause of section 8 and the concluding words of subsection 2, some amendment ; I would urge him to take into consideration an amendment striking out all the works after ' liable ' in the second last line of that subsection, and inserting in lieu thereof the words ' to be convicted.' Then it would read that in the case of a local agent who innocently receives from a merchant domiciled in Canada, closed packages and retains them in his possession, and sells them in good faith, without opening them) and having no reason to believe that they did not comply with the provisions of the Act, he would not be liable to a penalty, but would be immune from prosecution. What lesser justice could be accorded to the local dealer ? And why should the local dealer be held responsible under these conditions for any costs at all, or for any penalty ini the shape of costs ? I have in view places in my own constituency where distances are! very great, where means of communication! are very difficult, and where, if a prosecution was urged Under this subsection against the local dealer, he would be involved in! serious costs. The prosecution mentioned in subsection 2 to which he would be subjected for the reason mentioned in the closing words, would render him immune from any conviction. Then if he be held not responsible by reason of the disclosure of those facts referred to in the subsection, why should he be visited with a large amount of costs, both the costs of prosecution, the costs of the magistrate, and the costs of his own solicitor, involving also, in a country sparsely settled, travelling expenses and so forth, though he is not under the Act guilty of any offence ? I fail to see why this clause is inserted if it is not meant to render the person charged under these conditions entirely immune from any penalty. I fail to see why, if he is to be mulcted in the costs of a prosecution and called to pay his own costs, he should not be guilty of some offence under the Act. It would follow as a matter of course that because he has to pay some portion of the costs there must be a record against him for infraction of the Act, at any rate to that extent, that he was guilty of some offence. But the Act declares he is not guilty of any offence, which things .are an anomaly.


Mr FISHER.: The hon. gentleman has mistaken the case a little. The individual who is protected by this section is guilty.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: Of what ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Of selling seeds that did not conform to the provisions of the law. He has been prosecuted by a purchaser who is innocent and who has been defrauded* who has suffered a wrong. This section allows the party who has been guilty to show that he was not intentionally guilty, or that his guilt is due to the guilt of somebody else, and therefore he is only to be liable to 1he cost of prosecution. If he was not able* to show that, he was not intentionally guilty, or that his guilt was dud to the guilt of some-i body else, he would be punished under the rest of section 8.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: It would cost him a dollar more if convicted.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Possibly, and possibly more than a dollar more, that depends upon the case. But if the hon. gentleman's amendment were adopted the innocent purchaser who has been defrauded, who has been cheated, would have to go and pay the costs of prosecution. I think the person who has been doing what is contemplated in this Act, though not intentionally perhaps, had better pay those costs than the innocent party who has been cheated by the operation.


Robert Laird Borden: There is some force in what the hon. minister has observed, but after all it comes down to the question as to whether or not in the practical selling of seeds in this country it is a reasonable thing that dealers should open every package and test it before they sell it. I would think that not to be reasonable although I do not know very much about the trade.
I would consider that altogether an unreasonable requirement. If a local dealer has purchased from a firm of good repute, seed in packages and has sold the packages as he received them, should he be held to be guilty of an offence? Did not the hon. gentleman have legislation upon these lines two or three years ago in connection with apples or some other commodities and was not this very question considered then?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: There is no provision in the Fruit Marks Act which would give the protection to the local dealer which is here given.


Robert Laird Borden: I think the question was discussed.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: It may have been but there certainly is no such provision.


Mr. R. D. BORDEN.: It seems to me an unreasonable thing to require the local dealer to do this.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: The view I take is this : If the local dealer were to be entirely immune in every respect and be relieved of all responsibilities be would not be tempted to take any great care as to the kind of seeds

he was dealing in. He now knows that he is subject to prosecution. He may relieve himself of the penalties by certain proof but at the same time he knows that he may suffer somewhat. One of the best safeguards we can have is that the individual shall do his best to get the right kind of goods from the wholesaler and deal in them. I do not think that this result of his doing what is contrary to the law is too great an infliction to induce him to do his very best to get the best seeds. If he does try his best to get seeds that come within the provisions of this law I think he can succeed. I cannot see how it would be fair or right that the purchaser should have to pay the cost of the prosecution. I do not know of any other alternative.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: May I ask the hon. gentleman


Some hon. MEMBERS: Carried.


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER.: Order.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: I think hon. gentlemen might treat a young member of the House with some little courtesy. I was going to ask the hon. minister for information. How can the local dealer, under the conditions stated by him, protect himself? For instance, if a local dealer, as is often fhe case, receives a large number of packages, smaller packages and larger packages together, from the wholesale seed merchant, would he be compelled in order to render himself immune from the prosecution and his lawyer's costs for his defence to open every one of the packages before he sold them and if lie did not open every one of the five hundred or a thousand packages would he have to take the risk of at least paying the cost of his own prosecution.


Charles Marcil: Subsection 2.


Mr. TAYLOR.: We want an answer from the hon. minister.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: I would ask the hon, minister for an answer. I was merely seeking for information.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: As a matter of fact the retail dealer ought to take every precaution possible to protect himself and to see that the seeds he buys are up to the provisions of the law. He can take his sample of the seeds the moment he receives them.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: Then he must open the package?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: No, excuse me. The hon. gentleman is not familiar with the methods of the trade. He can take a sample without opening the package.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: I am not a farmer.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: No, the hon. gentleman is not a farmer, but he is like a good many other hon. gentlemen who talk about farming.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: I have not been talking farming.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: No, I admit the hon. gentleman has not been posing as a friend of the farmer, but he has been acting as the friend of the dealers and seedsmen. The samples can be taken by means of a little sampler which is commonly known and which, I believe, costs 25 cents, without breaking the seal of the package. Most retail dealers buy their seeds in large sacks and sell again not in the sealed package. The sealed package trade which is just beginning, which I hope will increase and which the country dealer ought to encourage in every way will still enable the country dealer to take a sample and know what he is buying before he sells the seeds. He will have to present the proof if he is attacked. I doubt verv much if he would be attacked if he showed the purchaser a sample of what he had bought.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: Would it be an excuse ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: What?


Arthur Cyril Boyce: He may not be attacked, but would it render him liable to attack?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: He might be attacked under the provisions of the law.
On subsection 3, of section 8,-report by magistrate.


Robert Laird Borden: You do not seem to have any way of enforcing that third clause which is very important.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I think it can be enforced now.


Robert Laird Borden: Under the general law? .


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Yes, and under clause 16-


Robert Laird Borden: The hon. minister did not refer to what was said by my hon friend from Muskoka (Mr. William Wright) in regard to one matter. What is his objection to allowing the Bill to be considered by the Committee on Agriculture as it is a matter that affects the farmers very closely? Is there any serious oojection to


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I do not think that at this stage of the Bill it is at ail advisable that ue should leter it to another committee. The subject has been threshed out In the House over and over again. This Bill has already been before this committee ; this is after all the Committee of the whole House and I do not see any possible object in referring it to a special committee or the committee on Agriculture. The question has been discussed and threshed out. It is being dealt with here where the opinions of everybody are on record and where they will be known and criticised and dealt with.
I see no object except delay and I cannot
Mr. fisher.

see any object in delay by referring it to any committee.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: We have sent other Bills of a similar character to that committee- the Bill for marking packages of butter and cheese and I think the Fruit Marks Bill.
'Mr. FISHER. Not the Fruit Marks Act.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Perhaps not, but we certainly do that because I remember bringing parties before the committee and taking their evidence and the committee making a report to this House. The only difficulty in dealing with the Bill in the Committee of the whole House is that no outsider can come before the committee and give evidence. These deputations may go before the minister but they cannot come before the members of this House and present their case nor can you ask such question from them as you would desire to bring out the information. We have the power to bring them before the committee to take evidence and to report to this House and it seems to me to be the proper place to bring it. The minister treats that with silent contempt.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: No I have answered my hon. friend.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I was in this House when the Agricultural Committee was first established and the chief argument in its favour was that you would have a committee amongst whom were the agriculturists of this House, before whom you could bring these matters and they could discuss them among themselves, bring experts before them and take such evidence as they might desire. Now we ignore the committee and say that we will not avail ourselves of the committee or allow the farmers or seedsmen to coma before the committee, but force it through the House as a government measure.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: My hon. friend's suggestion might have some force if the matter was new, but it has been discussed and discussed and discussed, and every one has had opportunities of making representations, I was going to say that the Bill had beeni in the hands of those concerned for years ; certainly the principle has been before them for years, and I cannot believe it is necessary to delay the passing of the Bill any longer* and can only regard the suggestion to refer it to the Committee on Agriculture as aj blind to prevent the passage of the Bill.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: That is not the design by any means, and I repeat that the minister is dishonouring the committee. He saysi that the case of those who are interested in the Bill is presented, but it is all presented at second hand, as they cannot come before the House or say a word.


Robert Nelson Walsh: How would this section apply to seeds bought anywhere except in Canada ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I do not know that it would.


Robert Nelson Walsh: A man buying seed in good faith would be liable to penalties without any recourse.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: It would be well for him
to buy his seed in Canada.


Robert Nelson Walsh: What about free corn for seed purposes ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Free corn is for feeding purposes.


Robert Nelson Walsh: For seeding purposes too.
On section 10-examination of seeds ; payments of samples ; penalty for preventing examination.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Objection is taken to this clause in that it is supposed that an officer might enter the premises of some party who is holding seed and not intending to sell it. I have therefore inserted the words

In respect of which he has reason to believe that any of the provisions of this Act are being violated.


Mr. LENNOX.: Where do they come In '!


Sydney Arthur Fisher: After the fourth line of the section before * are on the premises.' I) submitted the matter to the Department off Justice who said that the insertion of these words would limit and restrict the officer^ to cases where they believed the provision^ of the law were being violated.


Haughton Lennox: So far as those wordsi are concerned it seems to me they are the usual words and they would meet the point.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Is any one specially charged with the enforcement of this Act ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: A person could only be charged with the enforcement of the Act by Order in Council.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I understood the minister to say that no person was to be appointed 'j


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I said that I would authorize some or all of the present officers of tha department now engaged in the seed branch! to be the officers to act in such cases as are contemplated under this section.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: But there would be no inspector ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: There would not be an inspector appointed.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Suppose that a case is reported from Manitoba, who would be responsible for the carrying on of the prosecution ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I suppose the sample of seed would be sent down by some one inf Manitoba who was complaining. He could! take out the prosecution himself if he chose or the department might consider that the

circumstances of the case were such that it would be proper and right for the de-i partment to intervene. But that would be only in exceptional cases.


George Eulas Foster: Then they would have to bring the case in Manitoba ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: That would be covered by section 16.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: How would you present to the court satisfactory and conclusive evi-i dence of the analysis 1


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Section 15 would coven that.
son who may desire to purchase seed and who may suspect that it is not up to the requirements of the Act. It provides that he shall take a sample and forward it for analysis ; but there is no provision to enforce that, if the party refuses to give him a sample. [DOT]


Sydney Arthur Fisher: The Act is not violated until the purchase is made ; and if the informant or complainant makes complaint,, he can take a sample from what he has purchased, because it is his own. But under section 10 the inspector has the authority to enter upon the premises of the seller and take a sample on payment.
On section 11-samples to be sent to official seed analyst.


Haughton Lennox: I think the minister will amend this section ; it is the one to which the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr.' Foster) called attention. The hon. member for North Toronto pointed out that it should) be changed something on the line of thd alteration just made in section 10, that is to say, if the person had good ground for be-t lief or something of that kind. That must) commend itself to the minister and I think he so expressed himself the other day.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: This is only in regard to the taking of the sample and he could not! enter into the premises. Section 10 em-i powers him to enter into the premises and) that is limited by the words I have inserted! there.


Haughton Lennox: I do not think this is consistent with what the minister has done in the other section.


George Eulas Foster: If you insert the words ' or has good reason to suspect ', that will make it responsible.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I am quite willing to accept that.	[DOT]


Haughton Lennox: You use the word ' believe ' in the section above and the word ' suspect ' in this section. It seems to me that both sections should have the same wording.
(Mr. FISHER. I think it is all right.


Haughton Lennox: Does the minister prefer to retain the word ' suspect' '!


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I think so.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: If the only party charged with the responsibility of enforcement resided at Ottawa, and the seed suspected were in Manitoba, then it could only be taken for analysis through a complainant. He might not want to buy the seed, but he might be satisfied that it was impure.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: If he suspected it, he could easily purchase a small quantity and from that take a sample. I do not think it would be well to give an ordinary complainant the power to go into another man's premises and take a sample or force the other man to give him a sample of the seed he is handling. Section 10 gives that power to the inspector appointed to enforce the Act, but does not extend it to anybody else.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: You say that he shall do a thing which he has no power to do. You do not say that he shall purchase it, but you say that he shall take it, and take it in the presence of two witnesses. Now, the hon. minister admits that he cannot do .that. That was the contention we made before, that the party might not be willing to give up the seed.


Mr. BARKER.: The objection to clause 11 is that any busybody or meddler may go' to a seed merchant and insist on taking a sample.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: He has no power to do so.


Samuel Barker: What are the words ?
' Any inspector, informant or complainant who finds or suspects seeds to be sold,' shall take a sample. Why not adopt the words in the iprevious section : ' any person charged with the enforcement of this Act ' ?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: In this section you say that the informant or complainant shall take a sample, not purchase. By what authority shall he tane it ? Suppose the party refuses to give it to him ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I think clause 10 covers that.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Clause 10 refers to any person charged with the enforcement of this Act; but clause 11 ref ers to any per-Mr. FISHER.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: There is nothing there that gives any person the power to do that. Section 10 confers that power upon the inspector alone, but section 11 does not confer it upon anybody. That means simply that they shall take a sample when they have the control over the seed.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: My hon. friends may laugh, but I think that is all the power that

is given there. If they have not the control over the seed, they cannot take it; but if they have control over it, this section provides that they shall take it in a certain way.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: They would not complain of their own seed.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Excuse me. If I buy some seed from a dealer, that is my seed. If I find that it is fraudulent, I take a sample of it and complain of it.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Suppose you do not want to buy ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Then I may ask the seller to give me some. The inspector has power to go and take a sample, but other people have not.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: But under this section they would have the power.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I do not think so. I think they have only the power to take the sample where they have control of the seed or where the seller chooses to give them a sample.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: The wording of the section is only capable, according to my reading of the English language, of one construction, and that is, that the inspector-who is the one who corresponds with the person charged with the enforcement of this Act under section 10-and the informant or complainant -or in other words, any person in the neighbourhood who may make himself busy enough to complain that some one has been guilty of an infraction of the Act, must take a sample from the seeds in question. He is compelled to take the sample because the word 1 shall ' is used and not the word 'may,' and that sample must be submitted for analysis in the manner provided by section 12.


Mr. ALCORN.: It is evident that the section is not confined to the case put by the minister. The words ' or offered, exposed or had in possession ' cannot mean exposed or had in possession by the intending purchaser. They must refer to the dealer. The words are ' or offered, exposed or had in possession for sale.' Therefore, the informant or complainant has to take a sample from that seed while it is in the possession of another person. It is evidently not in his own possession. Section 10 gives the inspector the right to take a sample, but section 11 extends that right to some other classes of persons. It says ' any inspector, informant or complainant.' Any one of these men has the right to take a sample if he finds or suspects that seeds are put for sale, or are offered for sale in contravention of the law, or exposed or had in possession for sale; but evidently they must be put up or offered for sale, or exposed or had in possession for sale, by some one else than the complainant. It cannot be their own seed, but the seed
of somebody else of which they want a sample. It would be absurd to suppose otherwise.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I do not propose to give an opinion as a lawyer, but this clause was submitted to the Justice Department and approved by them as carrying out the intention. Section ten gives the person charged with the enforcement of the Act the power to enter upon any premises and take samples. Section eleven deals with a case which has arisen. It supposes that action has been taken or is contemplated, and for the purpose of making out a case, it provides that the inspector or informant or complainant shall send a sample of the seed to the official seed analyst for examination. I do not see that it gives any authority to do that if the owner of the goods objects to the taking of the sample. As a rule, I think a case would arise in two ways. Either the goods were offered for sale to the complainant, informant or inspector, or the goods had been already sold and the informant or complainant believed he was cheated. In the latter case the complainant has the seeds in his possession and can send a sample to be analysed. In the other case, where an offer to sell has been made but has not been completed, the informant can say: I want to take a sample of these seeds so as to test them. But I do not think he would have any authority to do so if the seller objected. The crux of this section is that a sample shall be taken by the aggrieved party and forwarded to the government laboratory for analysis.


Robert Laird Borden: Might I suggest that the previous clause seems to give ample power to enter and take samples?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: To the inspector.


Robert Laird Borden: You do not want any one else to have that power ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: No.


Robert Laird Borden: Why would it not be sufficient for this section to read down as far as line thirty-six: * may forward a sample from the said seed to such person as the Governor in Council may appoint ? ' That would make it much clearer and remove the difficulty.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I would not like offhand to amend the clause, as it was submitted to the Justice Department and declared by them to be in accord with the intention expressed. Section ten makes it an offence to obstruct the inspector if he chooses to take samples, but it does not give power to anybody else. My hon. friend will understand that in the case of an action which did not originate with the inspector or per son charged with the enforcement of the Act, a sample would still have to be forwarded to the laboratory for analysis.


Robert Laird Borden: You must get a sample of the same seed, but suppose the seeds are sold, how will you do about getting a sample? There may not be another bag in the possession of the dealer.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: You must get a sample of the seed actually sold,


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Here is a case that has been submitted to me : Suppose a man purchased seed and sowed it, but, afterwards haying reason to fear that it was not up to the standard, he wished to procure a sample of the seed, what authority would he have to take it ? I was innocent enough to think that under this section he could demand it in the presence of two witnesses, and that the party selling the seed would be obliged to give it.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I do not think he could demand a sample of the seed ; he would have to purchase a sample in order to get it. That is as I understand the section, and that is what I intended.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: But suppose the dealer refused to sell, he ought to have some way of getting the sample. It is not a question of the consideration paid, but a question of making sure that he can secure the sample.


Robert Laird Borden: I asked the minister if that was what was intended, and I understood him to say that it was not. What is now suggested is to give the person charged with the enforcement of the Act, or the complainant, as the case may be, power to go to the dealer and compel the dealer to deliver a sample of the same class of goods, that it may be forwarded to the department for analysis. The language that I suggest would not cover that, but I did not understand that that was the object that the minister had in view.
Mr, FISHER. I do not think that would be advisable.


Robert Laird Borden: I would agree with that.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: It would be troublesome and, I think, dangerous to allow a sample of seed other than that sold to be submitted as proof In regard to the sale of a certain seed. Suppose my hon. friend bought a bushel of grass seed in a country store and, after he had sowed it, had reason to think it might have been sold contrail to the provisions of this Act, if he got a sample of grass seed, even if it came out of the same hag, he would labour under a disadvantage, I think his lawyer would tell him, in proving that it was the same seed. The whole idea of the Act is that the sample that proves the case must be a sample of the seed actually bought or held in possession.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: If you compel the seedsman to put a tag on his bag of seed, I think Mr. FISHER.
that the only proof necessary would be proof that the sample afterwards got came out of the same bag with the same tag on it as did the seed complained of.


George Oscar Alcorn: 
Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.


William Foster Cockshutt: That is right, and I can give the minister the testimony. I have been a sufferer myself, and I know whereof I speak. Who was it that got the seeds from my firm without my knowledge or consent ? If the minister does not know, he had better find out. Who was it furnished me the information that these seeds had been given not to a man who intended to purchase or to sow ? My political opponent was the man who marked the analysis and sent it to me, and said : These seeds were obtained from you, and somebody has hoodwinked you. Is that the kind of legislation that the minister is going to put through this House ? I ask him to reconsider this. This clause permits any man to walk into an establishment and demand these samples. It permits any man, whether a buyer or not, he may be a political opponent, but he can walk in and take those seeds in spite of you. He can buy them from one of your employees when your back is turned, and there is nothing to show that he cannot.
Any inspector, informant or complainant who finds or suspects seeds to be sold or offered.
Let the minister understand that word, 'or offered,' not bought, merely offered. It says ' to be sold or offered, exposed or had in his possession, and this man may march in-whether he wants to buy or not, whether he is an agriculturist or not, whether he understands anything about seeds or not-he can walk in and demand samnles.
I ask the minister in all fairness if he wants to do that. We know that to deal with political appointments is bad enough, but we do ask, if he is going to enforce this Act, that we be committed to the tender mercies of a government appointed inspector, and not be thrown upon every informer who desires to walk into that establishment.
I ask the minister to confine that clause to a properly appointed inspector, who is supposed to know something about the seed trade. But if we are to be committed to the tender mercies of anybody, let us fall into the hands of our enemies rather than into the hands of an uncertain quantity like an informer, or informers by the score.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: It is a pity the hon. gentleman was absent for a while from the chamber. It is true that he accuses the committee of railroading through some sections while he was away. I do not know what the hon. gentleman's experience is in legislative bodies. But we have been now nearly two hours, and we have passed two sections, one of which was discussed for
about an hour and three-quarters this afternoon while the hon. gentleman was present. If he had been here all the time, he would not have accused me of all these horrible things. The hon. gentleman, unwittingly I am sure, has been putting words into my mouth the exact opposite of what I said in my explanations a few minutes ago of this particular section. The hon. gentleman's interpretation of it may be right, he knows what the English language means, he knows all about it, and of course the rest of us will take due knowledge an! record of what he tells us. At the same time, my intention, when the Act was drawn, was exactly the opposite of what the hon. gentleman has been attributing to me.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Several lawyers on this side of the House differ with the minister in the interpretation.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: As I said, I do not profess to give a legal opinion, I gave the opinion of the Department of Justice of Canada, which had declared that this section meant what I said. The hon. gentleman has given us the benefit of another speech this evening, as he did of several this afternoon. I remember he said this afternoon that his constituents had told him to say what he liked and as much as he liked about this Bill, and they would back him up. The hon. gentleman is taking full advantage of that permission, and he is saying a great deal about it, and I think that when he goes back to his constituents and asks them to back him up they will want some explanation of several things he has said, and perhaps the horn gentleman will find it a little difficult to explain exactly what he has said on several occasions. I notice that he has changed his position, at all events the expressions of his views, several times in the different speeches he has made. The hon. gentleman says that this clause provides that anybody, and everybody, and innumerable people, can go in and take from a dealer as many samples as they like. I think it is about what the hon. gentleman said. Now, I pointed out that my interpretation was that, with the exception of the inspector, who had power under the clause to do that, neither an informer' nor a complainant could enter into anybody's place and take any sample at all.


Samuel Barker: Why did not the hon.
gentleman say so ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I did say so; I said clearly that I did not think this section gave authority to anybody to go and take seeds that did not belong to him. I do not know how anybody could have misunderstood what I said, because I said that more than once and very distinctly. I said that section 10 gave the inspector or person charged with the enforcement of the Act. that power, and he was paid for it; but I said clearly that

nobody else had that power, and my Interpretation of clause 11 is that nobody has that power.


Robert Laird Borden: Would the hon. gentleman say what the object and intention of section 11 is ? I have been trying to find it out in good faith, and I really do not understand it.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I intended to indicate that when a case arises, and when a complainant desires to find a sample, or to have a sample of any seeds which are in question, or about which he intends to take action, he shall take a sample and forward it to the laboratory for the purpose of analysis.


Robert Laird Borden: How is he to get It ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: In any way he can.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Steal it.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: No, if he steals it he would be liable to the law of the land.


David Henderson: You said any way he can.
Mr. FISHER, I take it for granted that he is a decent Canadian citizen, and would not think of stealing it.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: Is the minister presuming that there has been a sale or transaction with these seeds, and that the inspector, or complainant, or informant, is getting them from the purchaser ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I am not presuming that there has been a sale, because this Act covers other things besides a sale, if there has been a sale, and the complaint is about a sale, then the purchaser who owns the seeds can take as many samples of them as he likes.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: It is not so worded, though I believe that construction may be put upon the section.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: It is a matter of drafting. This was drafted by the Department of Justice, and I think it is correct. Then the hon. gentleman asked whether there must be a sale. I was premising there had been a sale in some instances. But a person might want to get a sample when there had not been a sale; I would then only take a sample with the consent of the owner of the seed.


Robert Laird Borden: If it is merely a matter of consent, we do not require any statute. If this provision deals with seeds which have been purchased, you do not require any statute to enable an inspector or complainant to forward a sample to the Department of Agriculture. There is no law against forwarding anything to the Department of Agriculture. Any man in the country can forward anything he likes to the department, provided it is not dangerous and not calculated to blow the department up. Mr. FISHER.
Suppose you have the other case where the seeds remain in the possession of the dealer ; as I understand, it is not intended by this section to give to the inspector, informant or complainant any power to go forcibly and take a sample against the will of the dealer. The hon. minister has made that plain. It is a matter of consent. You do not want any statute if there is consent. With that consent he could go and procure a sample, which he will be at liberty to forward to the Department of Agriculture. The informant has perfect liberty without this section to forward it to the Department of Agriculture; and further than that if it is intended to enable him to get the sample by consent he can, without this statute, procure it under the law of the land and forward it to the Department of Agriculture. I can see that it is very desirable that the samples should be forwarded, but I do not see at the present time, as far as I can gather the intention of the hon. minister, that the section really accomplishes anything. I thought at first it was intended to enable the complainant or inspector to take the samples even against the will of the dealer, because that might be necessary in some cases but the hon. minister tells me distinctly that that is not the intention at all.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Not under this clause but under clause 10.
Mr. R, L. BORDEN. You have it in clause 10 ; therefore you do not need it in this clause.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I would say to my hon. friend that the Act that is intended under this clause could be accomplished in many instances without the clause. I do not think this clause confers any powers. The clause is directory as to the procedure which would be, I might almost say, necessary to the prosecution. I presuppose that the evidence in a prosecution would be the analysis of the seed laboratory and this clause directs that for that purpose and for that end a sample shall be taken. All that might be done without the clause. The clause simply directs that it shall be done and shall be done for that purpose. I said a minute or two ago while the hon. gentleman was speaking that section 10 gives the inspector, or person charged with the enforcement of the law, power to take a sample under certain conditions or restrictions. This section simply directs him to do so. It may be his duty to do so. He may get an order from the department to do so and there may be no necessity for putting any such direction in the statute.


Frederick William Borden: I do not think that there would be.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: There may not be.


Robert Laird Borden: May I suggest to my hon. friend that -I think it is undesirable to

put it there if it is simply intended to be [DOT]directory. You use language that is ambiguous. You say ' shall take a sample.' In construing a section of that kind a court would regard it as having been put there for some purpose and they would hardly say that this section was put there simply for the purpose of directing an officer to do that which he ordinarily would do under the instructions of the department and not by virtue of the statute. Therefore, there is some danger in leaving the clause in its present form. If you make it perfectly plain on the face of it that it is intended as a mere departmental direction to the inspector, or complainant or informant in order that there may be an analysis, there is no great objection to the section, although there is no great good in it as far as I can see, but unless you make it absolutely plain I think the section might pos-* sibly be construed in another way from that which the hon. minister states' to be his intention.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I think it goes a little farther than that in this sense ; I think it would be unfortunate if prosecutions were takeu out under this Act except where a sample had been taken and sent to the laboratory for analysis. The proof in regard to the purity of the seed would be so difficult that I consider that that would be a necessary precedent to the trying of the case.


Robert Laird Borden: You mean by the farmer who purchases or the inspector ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: 
Mr.  R. I.@: , BORDEN. Are these analyses made evidence by the statute ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Yes, by another section of the statute and that is the reason why we put in this directory or mandatory clause. I want to reiterate that I do not consider myself that the clause confers any powers or gives any control or authority to take any sample per force from the seller or owner of the seeds against that individual's will. My hon. friend, I do not think, reads the section to say so. I agree with him in that, I do not think it does, and I have no desire that it should. The words are all included here because I think it is necessary. I suppose that in legal drafting it is better to use these words : * Any inspector or, informant or complainant.' Then, following the subject matter to the end these words are used ' who finds or suspects seeds to be sold, or offered, exposed or had in possession tor sale for the purpose of seeding.' I suppose the clause would be Imperfect If all these words were not included to cover the whole meaning of the Act.


Robert Laird Borden: If the hon. minister would take the suggestion into consideration I would be inclined to think that the drafting had better be looked at. I thought the Bill was intended to mean what the hon. minister has suggested when I first read it and it may be so construed. I think the hon. minister's purpose would be better fulfilled by a clause drawn somewhat differently. If the hon. minister will submit to the Department of Justice what has been said in the committee in regard to it, possibly there would be no great difficulty in making it conform a little more closely to what I see now is bis intention.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I do not wish to press the matter at all. I want te accept a suggestion of such a friendly nature from the hon. leader of the opposition and I would be very glad to do so. I would be rather disappointed, however, not to get this Bill through to-night. The suggestion has been made to me that we might adopt the clause as it is and then if the Department of Justice wishes in any way to amend this clause they could do so on the third reading, referring it back to the committee if necessary.


George Taylor: Last night before the House adjourned my hon. friend from East Grey (Mr. Sproule) asked the hon. the Postmaster General (Sir William Mulock) who was leading the House then as now. what business he would take up to-day. He promised the House that we would first dispose of the Census Bill, then the Seeds Bill, and then get into supply with the estimates of the Department of Railways. If we are to follow that programme I think it would be better for the Minister of Agriculture to accept this suggestion which has been made two or three times from this side of the House-and now that he has come to a deadlock it is all the more necessary- that the Bill be referred to the Committee of Agriculture where the farmers and law-


121$
yers could whip the Bill into shape in the committee room and not be wasting the time of the House all day. It looks as if it would take two or three days to do it in the House. I have great respect for the Postmaster General and want to see the promise he made last night carried out, that these two Bills should be put through and that we should make some progress with the estimates. We would like to hear from the Postmaster General his opinion on the Bill and on the propriety of sending it to the committee and not discussing it in the House.


William Mulock: So many opinions have been offered that I do not think I could add anything to the debate.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: I was going to suggest to the minister that clause 11 might be passed for the present as suggested by him, but when he comes to consider the matter, in view of the somewhat ambiguous wording of section 11, all that the minister has suggested as being the meaning he engrafts on section 11 as at present framed might be added to section 10, so as to avoid the possibility of any misunderstanding. That is to add to section 10 something like this :
And such sample or samples shall he tor-warded by such person charged with the enforcement of the Act to such person as the Governor General in Council appoints as official seed analyst.
And then add the operative part of section 11. That occurs to me to be in accord with the intention which the minister explained to the House ; namely, that where under section 10 the person charged with the enforcement of this Act suspects that there is a violation, of the Act he _ may in his official capacity enter the premises and take samples and by the subsection such samples shall be forwarded to the analyst, pursuant to the provisions of the Act.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: In discussing it with the Department of Justice I shall bear that in mind.


William Foster Cockshutt: I would suggest that the interpretation which the hon. minister puts upon this clause should accompany the clause when it is sent to the Department of Justice because that interpretation does not agree with the plain language ol the Act. If this is submitted to the depart-rueut they can see if they can interpret it as he does, because 1 cannot interpret it m that way The hon. minister has been kind enough to say that I have said things that my constituents will not stand by.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I do not know.


Mr COCKSHUTT.: Possibly that is the case 'hut I was lending the best that was in me to make a good Bill for the minister, and 1 wish to say further that if the minister had lent himself to making as good a Mr. TAYLOR.
Bill as he could without regard to his constituents or to the electors throughout the country he would have a better Bill than he has to-night and would have thrown more light on the Bill than he has done. He has too much in view the effect upon the electors and too little in view the language of the clause. I submit that his first duty is to direct his attention to the language of the clause. That language is as straight as the English language can be. He may say that it conveys the meaning he attributes to it, and oil it over in that way ; lie is giving you a sugar coated pill. Unfortunately we will not have the minister present when the case comes up in court, and his interpretation will not be the interpretation which the court will put on it. He is putting on his interpretation as a great agriculturist, hut when it comes to the courts I venture to say, in the language of our learned leader, that the interpretation the court will put on the language is a very different thing from the interpretation the hon. gentleman has given to-night. The section says that the persons enumerated 'shall take a sample.' The minister says that that does not mean anything. Then in the name of all that is good leave it out; by all means obliterate it, drop it and put it where it should be, in the waste basket. I submit that the hon. gentleman according to his own interpretation of the words should take the clause out.


Robert Laird Borden: Of course it is understood that we can go hack again and discuss it in committee if we should think it advisable.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Yes, if the Department of Justice thinks it should he amended.
On section 12.-samples to be taken in presence of seller or two witnesses ; certificate to accompany samples.


Mr BOYCE.: There is one portion of that clause that I would commend to the attention of the minister, subsection (b). it would be rather an invidious or pernicious practice to allow ail informant or complainant to send an official statement of a case that would likely come before a justice of the peace for trial. It says that a statement ' shall ' include, that is, it must include the name and address of the person who sold or offered the seeds and so forth ; but it may include a great deal more, and there are certain facts extraneous to the case that might be included in the statement and that might have an unfair hearing on the case when it came to trial, ilie minister may argue that any statement of fact submitted by an informer or complainant would not have any effect upon the quality or the adulteration of the seed, blit there is this further to be spoken of, that the words ' informant or complainant ' having regard to the explanation with reference to section 11, might well be left out

especially if respect be paid to the suggestion of the leader of the opposition with regard to the meaning of that section which would render it unnecessary for the words ' informant or complainant ' to be introduced at all.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I think it would be necessary for a sample to be sent, whether it is taken by an informant or complainant or an inspector, and the sample would have to be taken by the machinery herein provided. Then we want to have certain information accompanying the sample. If that information did not come with the sample, the seed laboratory would be unable to attach the data of that particular seed for the purpose of identification in any prosecution which might come before the court. The only object of this is to see that it is the sample of the seeds which might afterwards be the subject of prosecution, and it is necessary that the two should be carefully connected so as to use the analysis as evidence.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: But the use of the words ' informant or complainant ' would not enter into the prosecution at all if clause 11 were amended in the manner suggested, because the whole thing would be done by the inspector or person charged with the enforcement of the Act.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Robert Laird Borden: I would not think so, because you have here an explicit provision of the statute, and you could not control that by any regulation made by Order in Council.
Mr. FISHER, I shall be glad to look into that point, and if there is any doubt about it, I will on the third reading go back-into committee to provide for that.
On section 7-exemptions from Act-


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I wish to amend this section for the purpose of adding a clause which will permit seeds marked as 'screenings ' to be held or sold for export only. Some of the seedsmen represented that they buy seeds that are foul, and after cleaning them they have a large quantity of screenings or refuse which they do not want to sell in Canada, for which they have not a market in Canada, but for which there is a market in some foreign countries, and they wish to provide that these may be exported.


Mr.   R.@: Ij. BORDEN. It seems to me that if that were done this result might follow, that if a dealer held for export seeds that contained a very slight quantity of weed seed he would be liable, but at the same time he might hold for export seeds of a very much inferior character known as screenings without being liable to any penalty. Would not that be the result?
On section 15-certificate as evidence-


Mr.   R.@: \j, BORDEN. The minister will observe that under section 12 the informant or complainant is to take a sample in the presence of the person who sold or in the presence of two impartial witnesses, and he is to inclose that and send it to the department with a certain statement. It is not provided that he shall inclose it in the presence of any person. He does that by himself, as his own individual act, I suppose. Then under section 15 it is provided that the certificate of analysis shall be accepted as evidence against any person prosecuted in respect of the seeds from which the sample purports to have been taken. The result is that you might not have the sanction of the oath of any person, but merely the word of the informant or complainant as to the identity of the particular sample forwarded with that from which it purports to have been taken. Would it not be better to amend section 15, and say, ' seeds from which the sample was taken,' and thus make it necessary to prove at the trial that the sample actually came from the seeds which are the subject of prosecution ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Section 17 provides that the Governor in Council may make regulations to secure the enforcement of the Act, and I think that would come within these regulations.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: It would be practically the result. The seedsmen inform me that their usual trade abroad is in first-class seeds. As a matter of fact, Canada has made a reputation for clover seeds abroad and the great bulk of the export trade is in these seeds. I do not think there is any market for inferior seeds that would not comply with all the provisions of this Act, except this trade in screenings or refuse.


Robert Laird Borden: I am not acquainted with the matter practically, but it struck me as a curious provision that a dealer might have in his possession for export seeds of a very poor quality without being liable, while he would be liable if he held for export seed of a very much superior quality. It seems to me that that is a curious condition in which to leave the legislation, although there may be conditions in the trade which make it desirable or necessary, and which I do not understand. As at present advised, it seems to me perilously near nonsense.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: This Bill would not interfere with the export trade, except in this matter of screenings and the seedsmen asked to be protected with regard to the latter. I would move that the section be reconsidered and these words added to clause 'O': * Marked as screenings held or sold for export.'
Section, as amended, agreed to.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I would like to substitute a new provision for section 18. Section 18 provides that any prosecution may be commenced within 12 months, but not later. Under the Summary Convictions Act, prosecutions must begin within six months. In its original draft, this Bill contained the same provision, but it was jjointed out that under subsection 2 of section 8 it might be impossible to begin the prosecution within the 6 mouths. Therefore, I propose that section 18 shall read as follows :
Any prosecution against any person under subsection three of section eight may be commenced within twelve months from the time the matter of complaint or information arose and not later.
That would allow the ordinary prosecutions to come under the provisions of the Summary Convictions Act.


William Wright: Will' prosecutions first have to be pressed against the retailer and then, if he proves innocent, be pressed against the wholesaler through the Department of Agriculture ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: That is the intention, but anybody may proceed against the wholesaler at once if he chooses.


William Wright: Where the wholesaler puts up seed in packages and those packages, are retailed without being broken, why not prosecute the wholesaler in the first instance ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: The purchaser may do so if he chooses, but the wholesale dealer may not be in the same district as that in which the final purchaser lives, and the last purchaser should be allowed to sue the retailer if he chooses.


William Wright: Suppose the name of the wholesale firm is on the package and the stamp has never been broken until it gets into the hands of the person who buys from the retailer. If a sample of that seed is sent to the official analyst, could not the department proceed against the wholesaler ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I think it could.
Section, as amended, agreed to.
Bill reported.


Mr. SPEAKER.: When shall the Bill be read the third time ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: This day week.


George Taylor: Will the Bill be reprinted in the meantime ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Yes.



SUPPLY.

[Stage Direction]
House in Committee of Supply.
Railways and Canals-chargeable to capital- Cornwall Canal enlargement, $7,000.
['Then, as soon as we finish Canals we will return to Public Works.']
Sydney Arthur Fisher: 


Henry Robert Emmerson: At the outset I wish to make a slight amendment with respect to the caption. I move to add the words ' and ether St. Lawrence Canals.'


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
["At the outset I wish to make a slight amendment with respect to the caption. I move to add the words ' and ether St. Lawrence Canals.'"]
Henry Robert Emmerson: This covers the paylist of the staff for the Cornwall and other canals amounting to $6,000, and the balance of $1,000 is to liquidate the remainder due on the regulating weir of the Cornwall canal.


Haughton Lennox: The amount voted last year was $64,500, and this year the minister asks only $7,000. Why such a great difference?


Henry Robert Emmerson: The amount last year was expended and there is a balance due of about $1,000, we hope that it will only amount to $700. The $6,000 as I have explained is to pay the staff.


Haughton Lennox: The alteration that is proposed can be legally made I suppose ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: If it does not change the destination. It could be confined strictly to the Cornwall canal, but, I thought it in the interest of accuracy to explain that while this stall was engaged for the Cornwall canal they performed also certain duties and services with the other St. Lawrence canal. Instead of having a separate staff of engineers for these other works we utilized the services of these officers on the Cornwall canal.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Railways and Canals-chargeable to capital- Canals-Galops Canal, enlargement $135,000.
['If it does not change the destination. It could be confined strictly to the Cornwall canal, but, I thought it in the interest of accuracy to explain that while this stall was engaged for the Cornwall canal they performed also certain duties and services with the other St. Lawrence canal. Instead of having a separate staff of engineers for these other works we utilized the services of these officers on the Cornwall canal.']
Henry Robert Emmerson: Last year we asked $292,300, of which there will be expended up to the close of the fiscal year all except $69,000, so that this item includes a revote of that amount. This is an enlargement to make the canal and locks conform to the fourteen-foot scale of navigation.


Haughton Lennox: Does this complete the work?


Henry Robert Emmerson: This is to pay certain claims and to complete the upper entrance and also to provide a new wharf at Cardinal.


Samuel Barker: What is the nature of the claims?


Henry Robert Emmerson: They arise in the adjustment of the contracts entered into on [DOT]schedule prices. In every work of this dis-cription, in winding up there are Maims in connection writh extra work perhaps not fully set forth in the specification. It Is estimated that, in connection with this work there would be. on the Cardinal section $52,251 of an adjustment between the chief engineer and the contractor in winding up,

carrying out strictly the terms of the contract.	.


Samuel Barker: Will the minister be good enough to say who are the claimants and the amounts ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: On the Cardinal section, William Davis & Son, $52,251. Then, there is an amount we expect to spend under the contract of Murray & Cleveland of $21,968. That is to complete the work. Then there is an item of $50,000 to cover claims for extra work which the engineer has required to be done under this contract, and the fourth item is for a new wharf at Cardinal, $11,GOO. The contract for the wharf has not yet been let.


Samuel Barker: What is the nature of the payment of $50,000 to Messrs. Murray & Cleveland?


Henry Robert Emmerson: It is in connection with the enlargement of the canal.


Samuel Barker: Is it for extras?


Henry Robert Emmerson: It is extra work, but not extras in the sense of being extras under the contract. It was in addition to the work specified under the contract.


Alexander Ferguson MacLaren: Will the hon. minister please tell us who Mr. Robert Smith is, the man who employed the extra men on this Cornwall canal?


Henry Robert Emmerson: That is under another vote. Mr. Robert Smith was a candidate in the recent election. He is supposed to be a friendly adviser.


Haughton Lennox: Do I understand the minister aright, to say that $50,000 is for extra work that would not come under the contract?


Henry Robert Emmerson: Perhaps not arising out of the contract, but extra of that specified by the contract.


Haughton Lennox: But it is not provided for in the contract. The contract I presume is the ordinary contract we have laid on the table occasionally, and provides that no extras should be incurred except under certain conditions. It is important to know if this work was outside the contract and was not contemplated when the contract was let.


Henry Robert Emmerson: These contracts ai'e entered into at schedule prices, the engineer's estimate is made on the basis of a certain quantity of work. Now, in the course of carrying out the work it is frequently found that additional work is necessary; this additional work is ordered to be done, and it is done at schedule prices. This item of $50,000 in connection with the Murray & Cleveland contract is to cover such extra work in addition to what was contemplated originally. But the contract prices have been entered into, and the limits pre-39J
scribed originally by the specifications have Jbeen enlarged.


Haughton Lennox: It comes to this, that you can let a contract complying with the Act, after having advertised for tenders and got the tenders in, and it may be a work in which it is contemplated to spend $20,000. Then having got tenders upon that basis, and on which the contractor necessarily has to tender high up, he can enlarge the scope of his operations and may double that amount. You may then give him additional work at schedule prices to the extent of $50,000 or $100,000. It appears to me that in that way the provisiofis of the statute in regard to tenders are substantially violated, that although nominally the matter is let by tender after due advertisement, yet in that way the statute is in effect disregarded.


Henry Robert Emmerson: My hon. friend has stated a hypothetical case; now, I will state the case as it is. Here was a contract entered into for a sum amounting altogether to about $2,000,000. This has gone on over a number of years, and in the final adjustment of the claim in consequence of extra work that was necessary in the judgment of the engineer, we. require about $50,000 finally to adjust with the contractor. The percentage is not very large, and I do not think much objection can be taken to the amount.


Haughton Lennox: Is it a fact that there is only this one item of $50,000 out of a contract of some $2,000,000?


Henry Robert Emmerson: That is my information.


Haughton Lennox: I think that is pretty satisfactory


Samuel Barker: Does the minister assure us that this $50,000 is only to pay for work at the rate of contract prices? Is it intended to confine the payments absolutely to the rate per yard, or whatever it was, of the contract?


Henry Robert Emmerson: I can give my hon. friend the assurance from what the chief engineer tells me that in every instance the prices are actual schedule prices, that is usually the case. But he cannot recollect with respect to this particular matter. But he states that there are times when that rule is departed from, and in accordance with a particular clause in the contract which provides that any extra work ordered by the chief engineer in writing need not necessarily be performed at the schedule prices. It is for the chief engineer to fix at the time he requires this extra work the price with the contractor.


Samuel Barker: Then the hon. gentleman will see that this $50,000 is not merely for additional work, but consists of extras. That is the question I asked in the first instance. You are allowing for extras here;

we asked that question and were informed it was only additional work that was performed.


Henry Robert Emmerson: It is very difficult to express it.


Samuel Barker: Oh, no.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I think my hon. friend will see that it is not exti'as in the sense that you are paying anything additional for work that was contracted for, but it is for the payment of extra work that was not contemplated at the time the contract was entered into.


Samuel Barker: And at an extra price.


Henry Robert Emmerson: Not necessarily at an extra price. The prices fixed in the schedule might govern, but the extra work might not be of the value fixed by the schedule and it is under the terms of the contract left to the option of the chief engineer to fix the price at which that work shall be done.


Samuel Barker: It is an extra.


Henry Robert Emmerson: Call it what you like.


Alfred Alexander Lefurgey: If I understood the hon. minister aright a [DOT] few moments ago in answer to a question from my hon. friend from Perth (Mr. MacLaren) he said that the person who recommended the extra men required during October and November on the Cornwall canal was Mr. Robert Smith, who was the government candidate for election to this House.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I was asked who Mr. Robert Smith was, and I said he was a candidate at the last election. If my hon. friend wants to refer to ' Hansard ' the statement that I made the other day is there reported.


Alfred Alexander Lefurgey: I am just referring to ' Hansard ' and I want to remark that it is a very extraordinary circumstance that a candidate for election to this House should, during the months that active canvassing is going on amongst the electorate, have the authority to go to the superintendent of any of the public works in Canada and put on twenty-five or thirty extra men. It is certainly prostituting the elections for this House to degrading ends. I would like to know from the hon. minister if that is the regular custom followed by the government in regard to public works, if candidates are given liberty to go to superintendents of public works without any apparent cause, without any crisis arising in regard to these works, and to recommend the employment of men apparently for the purpose of obtaining votes in the election.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I think that for the past twenty-five years in Canada the custom has prevailed that where men are wanted on public works the government oH


Samuel Barker: the day usually apply to their friends. They have applied to some one who would advise .them in a friendly way and I think that custom has not been departed from. Men are not put on who are not wanted. It has been the custom year after year, whether an election was in progress or not, to have certain work done at that particular season of the year. That was done last fall, it was done the preceding fall, it has been done ever since I have had any knowledge of the department and I think it has been done from time immemorial. This is necessary work in connection with the canal. It requires men. To whom shall you apply? Of course, you will have to get some one who will advise you wisely. Under these circumstances, when we wanted some men, Mr. Smith was asked to name those who would be fit and competent to take such positions, and the department, having confidence in his advice, accepted it. There is nothing unusual in that and nothing very startling.


Alfred Alexander Lefurgey: I think it is an outrageous principle to put before the committee, that any man who happens to be running for a constituency should have the power to override the superintendent of a public work who is a paid employee of the government and to select men to do this work, that he shall have the power to say that this or that person who may be friendly to him shall be employed and to exercise this power just at the time the election comes on.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I am sorry to lacerate the sensibilities of my hon. friend.


Mr. PRINGLE.: I am very glad to hear the hon. minister make the acknowledgment here that these men were wanted just before the election in November.


Henry Robert Emmerson: This was in October.


Robert Abercrombie Pringle: And in November. If the hon. gentleman will look at my question he will see that I interrogated him in regard to both months.


Henry Robert Emmerson: The hon. gentleman is now referring to November. I am correcting him and pointing out that it was in October that these men were employed.


Robert Abercrombie Pringle: They were employed in October and November. During the most active stage of the election canvass I paid a visit to Dickenson's Landing at the head of the canal and I found that nearly every man was employed in a ditch which was being dug out nobody knew for what purpose except that these meij, were being given employment in the campaign. I thought one Saturday afternoon that I would go out into a certain section of the town of Cornwall and call upon some of the voters in that district. I found that they were all working on the canal, that

they all had government positions, and I also found that these positions terminated immediately after the elections. These men were wanted very badly for the purpose of assisting Mr. Smith in his campaign. The hon. minister has, in his answer to this question, stated that there were some twenty-five or forty extra men employed, but I venture to say that during September, October and November there were at least 100 men put on outside of the staff generally employed on the Cornwall canal, and I say that I believe they were put on for one purpose and one purpose only and that was the purpose of the election which was coming on in the month of November.


Haughton Lennox: The hon. minister says that this work is done every year. Is that true?


Henry Robert Emmerson: This occurs every year.


Robert Abercrombie Pringle: I venture to say if you look back in the Auditor General's Report for past years you will find it has never occurred, that in any previous year there have been so many extra men employed on the Cornwall canal. These men were tumbling over one another. They were the laughing stock of the community. People said they were pulling weeds on the bank of the canal. I remember that at the time the registration was going on, I saw one good Conservative actively engaged in assisting at the registration. He came out from the court room and I said to him : ' What are you doing here ?' He said: ' I am pulling weeds on the Cornwall canal, but I have to do some work for Mr. Smith.' I said: ' Are you getting paid for pulling weeds on the Cornwall canal while you are assisting in the registration here?' and he said 'My pay goes on just the same.' This went on during the months of October and November. I may say this is not a proper way of spending the money of the country. Nor is it proper just at that time to put it in the hands of the government candidate to say what men shall come on that work, and what men shall not come on it. It gives him a very great power in an election and a power which the government should not place in his hands. I myself am not at all sorry to see these men get work. It was a season of the year when many of them were out of employment and if the government had such a large surplus that they wanted to assist these poor men I am not sorry to see them get the money in the way they did, but I disapprove of the minister permitting the government candidate to say that twenty-five or thirty men shall go on at this place and twenty-five or thirty men at some other place on the Cornwail canal when we all know that this, is done solely for the purpose of assisting in the campaign.
Mr. EM1MERSON. I wish to say to myl hon. friend (Mr. Rrinj le) that he is not stat-l ing the facts as I hav * stated them and that I have stated them in accordance with what transpired. Mr. Smi\ h had no right noil did he attempt to exercise the right, toi place any number of men on that canal or* any portion of it, but when the department! iii the ordinary course of its business-for) it is annually required to make certain ret pairs and did so last year and the preceding year, and I am informed by the chief engineer of canals that it is done every year-t wants men to do that work the difficulty is to get the men. It is not always easy) to secure men for such work and Mr. Smith) was asked by the superintendent of canaia with respect to getting a certain number of men.


Robert Abercrombie Pringle: Would that be Mr. Stew-t
art ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: Yes, Mr. Stewart, he is the superintendent to whom I referred} and when the men were required, Mr.; Smith's advice was asked. To whom shall we refer ? We have to get information from) some one ; the department has not the knowledge and the superintendent of canals is certainly not to run around the country! looking up men.


Robert Abercrombie Pringle: Prior to 1896 on our St. Lawrence canals we had a superintendent on each canal whose duty it was to see that the proper repairs were made. We have) a permanent staff employed on each of these canals who go from end to end of the canal. They have their scows and the other articles necessary for use, and they have always done the repairs on these canals.! Since 1896 in order to make a position fox) the organizer of the Liberal party in Glengarry, Mr. Stewart, an ex-school teacher! and I think an ex-insurance agent too, he was put in charge of all the canals. I ana not saying anything personally about Mr. Stewart, I think he is a very respectable gentleman. But he knows less about a! canal than I do. I think he knows little or nothing about our canals ; he could not possibly know anything, he had no exper-* ience. His training was not such that he could have any knowledge of our canals. Then under Mr. Stewart, there is now the superintendent of the Cornwall canal. Why is this man overlooked ? Why has he} not something to say in regard to the men| who are employed in connection with the work of that canal ? 'The government evL dently considered that he was a man fitted for the position when they put him in charge under Mr. Stewart, of the Cornwall canal, and yet that man is ignored and had no-t thing whatever to say in regard to any man employed on that canal. Instead of consult! ing Mr. Lally, the superintendent of the canal, the minister frankly admits that Mr}

Stewart goes to Mr. Smith the candidate? and says :	Mr. Smith, we want so many
men put on the Cornwall canal. He entirely ignored and overlooked the man who is paid a very substantial salary for taking charge of the Cornwall canal. I do not think that is a proper way of conducting the affairs of this canal. ,1 am told that he was never consulted in any way. Jlr; Stewart goes to Mr. Smith, a lawyer and a politician, and says, we want certain repairs on the Cornwall canal ; you furnish the men. Why should he not go to Mr. Laliy and ask him what is required to be done in connection with the canal of which he has charge and let Mr. Laliy take charge of it, and do the work with the permanent staff he has under him on that canal for this very) purpose ? I say again that you cannot turn! to the books of previous years and show that it has been the custom to put on a staff of; (extna men in the fall of the year. This ia the first time it ever occurred and it occurred just when we were in the heat oil an election. I say now that, notwithstand-) ing the answer, they may not be called ex-) tra men, but there was a staff of 50 to 10Q men in connection with the work and they were there for one purpose, a political purpose.


Henry Robert Emmerson: Communications with respect to these canals by the department are always had with the superintendents.' There is no superintendent of the Cornwall canal. There is a Mr. Laliy there, who is an overseer, but in so far as Jhe transaction) of the business of the canals is concerned, he has no more to do with the transaction of the business of the canal than the overseer of any of the other canals. The superintendent, Mr. Stuart, is in charge of all the canals and he receives his instructions from the department. In so far as the expenditure last) year and the previous year particularly is concerned, the appropriations were not passed by parliament until a very late date and! the work that might have been done earlier iii the season could not be undertaken because no funds had been provided and therefore before the cold weather came on it was necessary to put on an extra crew of men. Some 40 were employed in connection with this canal and it was done at the earliest possible moment, as it was done the preceding year when there was no election, lit may be a coincidence that there was an election going on but simply because there was an election is no reason why the work should not be attended to in the or-t dinary course of events.


Robert Abercrombie Pringle: The minister says that Mr. Laliy is overseer. What does he oversee, if he does not oversee the work that was done on the Cornwall canal ? Why was Mr. Stewart going jumping about along the front like a pea on a gridiron, making himself active politically, in and out of m3j Mr. PRINGLE.
constituency, attending to the work on that canal, shoving to one side the man em-t ployed as overseer ? The minister knowsi as well as I know that the overseer of the canal has not received fair treatment from' Mr. Stewart, and that during the campaign! Mr. Stewart came into Cornwall and devoted! all his time to political work in an effort! to defeat me. Mr. Laliy, if he is an overseer, could have seen to the cleaning of the banks and removal of weeds in the fall ; he was quite competent to do that, but Mr. Laliy is overlooked entirely, a superior is brought in for this campaign. There was little use for him in Morrisburg, his headquarters at) that time, because he recognized the impossibility of defeating Mr. Broder, so he devoted the most of his time and energies to the county of Stormont, and put on this extraj staff of men to help him. That is the truth in regard to the work that went on there! last fall.


Robert Laird Borden: What was the date when the men were eiy doyed and the date when they were dismissed ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: I gave the dates the other day. Some of them were dismissed in December and some in the latter end of November. Some of them were employed in September.


Robert Laird Borden: When they were not pulling weeds and attending to the registration of voters, what were they doing ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: I am not aware that any of them were doing that. I am bound to accept the statement of my hon. friend ; but the very great friendliness which he evinces towards Mr. Stewart, of which we had evidence last year, and of which we have some evidence to-night, would not indicate to me that he is very warm in his favour. Mr. Stewart is certainly a very excellent business man, and attends to' his duties very carefully, so far as they come under my observation. Mr. Laliy is a sort of overseer or foreman, whose duty it is to see that the men who are engaged attend to their work, and I am sure that he would not have these men playing or have them up town or anywhere else and drawing their pay without attending to their work. I must assume that, because I must assume that he was attending to his duty.


Robert Abercrombie Pringle: I want to say with regard to Mr. Laliy that he is a very competent man, who knows more about canals than Mr. Stewart.could learn in a year. Mr. Laliy is a man well fitted for his position, and he does his work well ; but he was so hampered and interfered with by Mr. Stewart coming on the canal and assuming to take charge and to put on a staff of men who were not required, that he prepared his resignation with the intention of sending it in to this government. I cannot speak

too highly of Mr. Lally as a capable man for the work entrusted to him.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I am surprised that he did not send in any complaint to the department.


Robert Abercrombie Pringle: I have not the slightest doubt that he did. I understand that he made many complaints.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I am informed by the chief engineer that he never made any complaint, and I never heard of any.
Mr. PRINGLE). Have complaints not been sent in in regard to Mr. Stewart's interference with the Cornwall canal by Mr. Smith himself ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: The chief engineer states that he does not know of any, and I certainly do not recollect any.


Richard Blain: Are we to understand, then, from the minister that that is the policy of the department in the employment of labour?
I remember the hon. gentleman stating that so far as the Intercolonial Railway was concerned. he knew no politics. Are we to understand, then, that he has one policy for the Intercolonial Railway and another for the canals ? Does he adopt that policy all along the line, of consulting the member or the defeated candidate in regard to the employment of all the men i


Henry Robert Emmerson: I can only say what my policy is in respect to that matter. If I require any advice in connection with any public work in any constituency, I am not going to be mealy-mouthed about it; I want to say frankly that I am going to consult my friends. My hon. friend says that I stated, with respect to the railway, that I knew no politics. I do not know that my hon. friend can find on record a bald statement like that. I am not going to be hypocritical about it ; in the administration of the works under me, if it comes to be a choice between two, a Liberal and a Conservative, all other things being equal, I am going to favour the Liberal ; and I think I would not have the respect of my hon. friends opposite if I were to make any other statement. I treat those in the public service who are Conservatives justly, properly and courteously ; but in dealing with the public interest, I am not going to allow politics in any way to interfere with the works if I know it.


Richard Blain: We are to understand, then, from the hon. minister that there is no danger of there ever being a conflict between the two political parties, because my hon. friend always gets his information from one source.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I get it from both ; I get it from everybody.


Richard Blain: I am taking the words of the hon. minister. He says he always consults his own friends-I suppose he, means his political friends. We are to understand from the hon. minister that it is a political department.


Henry Robert Emmerson: Oh, no.


Richard Blain: I am taking the hon. gentleman's words.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I will be judged by my words, not by the hon. gentleman's construction of them.


Richard Blain: I will take the hon. gentleman's own words. He says he consults his own friends. He means his political friends. Do I misundertand him ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: No, you do not misunderstand me.


Richard Blain: The hon. gentleman says that when he wants any advice in a particular county, or wants men to put on works, he consults his own political friends. Therefore, we are to infer that no Conservative will be put on ; no other inference is possible. So when we have any estimates of my hon. friend, we know that no Conservative need apply.


Henry Robert Emmerson: They do apply, though.
Galops Rapids-to complete channel, $26,500.


Henry Robert Emmerson: This is a revote of a portion of the amount appropriated last year to complete this work.


Robert Laird Borden: Will this complete it ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: I am informed by the chief engineer that it will.


Robert Abercrombie Pringle: Who has the contract for that work ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: The Gilbert Company.


Robert Abercrombie Pringle: The work is to be done under the same contract that was entered into six or seven years ago ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: The same contract.
North channel-forming channel and building dam between Galops and Adams Island, $70,000.


Haughton Lennox: Is.	this item	correct	?
This asks for an appropriation of $70,000 and then says that $90,200 is a revote.


Henry Robert Emmerson: That is a printer's error. It is a revote of	$70,000.
Improvements at	Port	Colborne	entrance,
$250,000.	.


Robert Abercrombie Pringle: Who has the contract ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: Hogan & McDonald.


Robert Abercrombie Pringle: Were they the lowest tenders ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: Yes. There were 14 and they were the lowest at schedule prices.


Robert Laird Borden: Does this complete ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: No, it will require $150,000 more to complete.
Electric light and power plant, $100,000.


Henry Robert Emmerson: That [DOT]will complete.


Richard Blain: Is it by contract ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: Yes, except a small item.


Richard Blain: Who are the contractors ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: There are several. Mr. Battle has the contract for the poles. The Northern Aluminum Company have the contract for wire. The Hamilton Bridge Works have the contract for steel poles. The Wire and Cable Company have the contract for copper conductors. Baker & Co. have the contract for arc lamps and regulators. In all cases the lowest tenders were accepted.


Mr. ARMSTRONG.: How comes it that whereas in 1903 the cost of maintenance was $72,004, in 1904 it has increased to $116,858.


Henry Robert Emmerson: Do you mean on the Welland canal ?


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: Yes.


Henry Robert Emmerson: That is in consequence of the repairs. There has been an increase in the wages of the men, but the greater part of the increase is caused by the additional repairs necessary.
To remove obstructions and make other improvements, Welland canal, $75,000.


Robert Abercrombie Pringle: What is the price paid per cubic yard for the removal of earth and dredging work ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: Thirty-eight and a half cents.


Robert Abercrombie Pringle: When was this contract originally entered into ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: I think three years ago.


Robert Abercrombie Pringle: Is that a continuous contract to last for all time to come for any excavation required in the Welland canal ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: That was only within certain limits. The work was to be proceeded with year after year.


Robert Abercrombie Pringle: Have any new tenders been called for for this work to be done since ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: It was all included in the original contract.


Robert Abercrombie Pringle: Does my hon. friend say that 384 cents is a reasonable figure for the work done ? I understand that 22 cents would be a fair price.


Henry Robert Emmerson: 


Henry Robert Emmerson: I only know that every tenderer knew what was contemplated. Here was a certain area to be excavated. The specifications were very explicit and were understood by the other tenderers as well as by the successful ones.


Robert Abercrombie Pringle: Was it not understood at the inception of the contract that only a small quantity was to be removed ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: My chief engineer says not. The specifications clearly said a certain area.


Robert Abercrombie Pringle: Will the hon. gentleman lay the contract on the table and let the item stand in the meantime ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: I am quite willing. Item allowed to stand.
To deepen portions of summit level between Port Colborne and Thorold, $80,000.


Robert Abercrombie Pringle: Who has that contract ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: Magann & Finn.


Robert Abercrombie Pringle: The same firm that had the other contract ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: No, the other was given to Weddell, Battle & Manley. Magann & Finn have this one.


Robert Laird Borden: Does this complete the work ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: Yes.


Robert Abercrombie Pringle: Is that a continuous contract as well ? They have been going on with this work the last five or six years, and every year there seems to be a larger appropriation for it.


Henry Robert Emmerson: When the contract was first entered into the work was estimated to cost so much, and it was expected that it would not be completed only in a number of years. The deepening of this portion of the canal is necessary from the fact that Lake Erie is gradually lowering its level, and this level has been deepened two feet, giving 17 feet at the ordinary level of Lake Erie, and 15 feet at low water. At the time the contract was let there were three tenders. The total estimated cost at 384 cents was $530,217. Besides this vote of $80,000, we will require $60,000 to complete the work.


Robert Abercrombie Pringle: What has been paid to this firm up to the present time?


Henry Robert Emmerson: Up to June 30, 1903, the amount paid was $139,250; from June 30, 1903, to June 30, 1904, the amount paid was $121,121, making a total up to June 30 last of $260,371; there has been expended between June 30 and December 31, 1904, $129,899, or a total to 31st of December last of $390,270. Then, as I have said, it is estimated that $140,000 will be required to complete the work, of which we are now

asking $80,000. I wish to correct a statement I made a few moments ago. X was asked as to deepening rock cut on the Welland canal and as to the contract price for the earth excavation. There was no earth excavation provided for in the contract; it was all rock cutting and the lowest tender was $2.90 per cubic yard. The earth work I had in mind at the moment was deepening portions of the summit level, the contract price for which is 38Jc. per cubic yard. So, perhaps, my hon. friend (Mr. Pringle) will allow the item of $75,000 to go, that being the rock excavation.


Robert Abercrombie Pringle: 
Henry Robert Emmerson: That occurred three years ago.


Mr PRINGLE.: Did it occur before the letting of this contract?


Henry Robert Emmerson: It was to remedy that very defect that this contract was entered into. Let me be understood in respect to the matter. The contract of Weddell, Battle & Manley was at $2.90 per yard for rock excavation. The Magann & Finn contract for deepening portions of the summit levei between Port Colborne and Thorold was at 3Sic. per cubic yard for earth excavation.


Robert Abercrombie Pringle: I quite understand that. The Auditor General's Report shows the prices that were paid last year.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I cannot speak as to whether this is a low or high price, but I know it is the contract price under the tender.


Robert Abercrombie Pringle: But the minister ought to know whether the contract covers all the excavation to be done in that canal for the next few years.


Henry Robert Emmerson: The contract contemplated the carrying out of a certain work, the removal of 1,377,000 cubic yards of earth on this summit level between Port Colborne and Thorold. A certain portion of that work has not been completed. It was contemplated that it would take several years to do it. The total cost of the work was estimated at $530,270, of which after December 31 last $390,270 had been expended. The balance of the excavation, 377,000 cubic yards, is yet to be done, and it is for that we are asking this vote.


Robert Abercrombie Pringle: I would ask that this item stand until we have the contract.


Charles Marcil: The item of $75,000 is carried.


Henry Robert Emmerson: And the one of $80,000 stands. All right.
Welland canal-to remove centre piers and rebuild bridges at Niagara and QueenSton Streets, near Homer Road crossings, $150,000.


Robert Laird Borden: Does that complete the work?


Henry Robert Emmerson: That is supposed to complete the work.
Mr. BLAIN Row much was expended last year?


Henry Robert Emmerson: The total estimated cost of this work is $190,000. Of this item, $30,000 is a revote, and the $70,000 last year makes $190,000, the total estimated cost.
To make survey of canal, $20,000.


Henry Robert Emmerson: There is no complete plan of this canal, and apparently no accurate survey has ever been made of it. It is represented by the department that both are much needed.


Samuel Barker: What is the length of the canal ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: Twenty-seven and a half miles. An engineering survey of the whole canal is necessary to secure data from which a thorough and accurate plan can be prepared.


Robert Abercrombie Pringle: Does the minister mean to tell us that the original plans upon which this canal was constructed are not in possession of the department ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: There was, I believe, originally, a survey made, but there were no monuments placed. There have been continual encroachments upon the lands of the canal, and there are difficulties arising every year between the department and the owners along the canal ; therefore it is necessary to have a new survey. I see by a statement before me that there never was a complete plan of the canal in existence.


Samuel Barker: Was there a plan of any portion of it ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: There are detached plans of certain portions.


Samuel Barker: Of what portion of the twenty-seven miles have you plans ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: From Allanburg down to Port Dalhousie, about thirteen miles.


Samuel Barker: Then for fourteen miles of survey you want $20,000 ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: That has to be surveyed as well. There was the old canal which was changed, and now, in order to

put down monuments and to have a very accurate survey, marking out the line of the canal fixing the boundaries between the canal proper and the adjoining owners, it is estimated that we shall require $20,000. That is the estimate of the chief engineer.


Robert Abercrombie Pringle: Does the minister mean to say that when the land was acquired for th<^ purpose of constructing the Welland canal, the conveyances given to the Crown did not properly designate what the Crown was acquiring, and that that land was not marked out at the time, that the canal was not built on a regular system of plans, and that it is necessary now to expend something like $1,000 a mile to ascertain where the land belonged to the Crown lies ? Is that the position ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: No doubt the deeds did not designate the boundaries ; but it appears that monuments were not placed, certainly they were not sufficiently placed, or so insufficiently placed that there have been constant disputes arising between the owners of adjacent lands and the Department of Railways and Canals. Now in order to remedy these it is necessary to make a complete survey of the whole canal, and it is estimated by the engineer that in order to do that, and to prepare an accurate plan of the old canal, it will take $20,000.


Robert Abercrombie Pringle: What form have these disputes taken ? It is the first we have heard of any claims against the government in regard to encroachments upon the lands of private individuals along that canal.


Henry Robert Emmerson: There are quite a number of cases. The engineers have attempted to fix the bounds of the canal as they understand it, and in some instances these boundaries go through the property of private owners who contend that they are not the proper boundaries. They contend that we encroach upon their property. When our men go on they send in bills or claims for trespassing on their lands. This has occurred, and has been going on for some time, and certainly it is a matter that should be settled.


Mr. COCHRANE.: Is the canal fenced ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: It is in some places.


David Henderson: Do I understand this $20,000 the minister is asking for, is to pay surveyors for a new survey of the canal, or is it intended to compensate the owners of property along the canal for damages ? The minister says there are constant complaints about trespassing ; is the money all to be expended on surveys, or is it to be used for the purpose of settling these difficulties and compensating owners of the land who claim they have been encroached upon ?	$20,000 seems to me a large sum
for a survey of twenty-seven miles of canal.


Henry Robert Emmerson: This sum does not include any item for the payment or settle-Mr. EMMF.RSON.
ment of claims. It is estimated by the engineer that it will take $20,000 to make a survey, prepare plans and place the stone monuments along the bounds of the canal.


Samuel Barker: Will it be done by officers of the department ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: The chief engineer says that a land surveyor will be necessary along with the engineers of the department.


Robert Abercrombie Pringle: I see last year that you had Mr. Davie attached to the Welland canal staff, and there is another engineer with him. What are these men doing ? Are they merely laying out a route for these poles for electric lights ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: We have engineers at different points. The superintending engineer, Mr. Weller, is stationed at St. Catharines, he has one assistant. Mr. Davie I think is at the Port Colborne end of the canal, in connection with the construction works that are going on there. These gentlemen I have named are on the permanent staff.


Edward Cochrane: Then you will not want $20,000 to pay these ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: They are temporary in a sense.


Samuel Barker: What is the practice when an officer on a given staff is detailed for particular work ? Does he go off the paylist on the regualr staff, and is his pay charged to the particular service ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: Invariably that is the case. He does not get paid from both.


Samuel Barker: How is it that you take a vote in the estimates for these officers ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: That is the regular vote, it may not be expended. We cannot always anticipate that they will not be employed in connection with some other work.


Mr.  R. I.@: Take a double vote.


Henry Robert Emmerson: It is necessary in connection with this vote under the law of Ontario to employ a regularly qualified land surveyor-hon. gentlemen from Ontario will know whether that' is correct or not- in fixing bounds which may be in dispute.


Samuel Barker: But you surely have several provincial land surveyors on your staff ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: I am not aware of one.


Samuel Barker: Every man of that class who has been taken from Ontario is probably a provincial land surveyor.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I am not aware of it. If it is so it would cover the difficulty but the chief engineer tells me that he thinks that they are not.


Haughton Lennox: There is another aspect of the case that X would like to call the hon. minister's attention to and it is this; assuming that there is a dispute between a landowner and the government in what way does the hon. minister propose to adjust It ? Ordinarily in a case of dispute between adjoining owners each party pays a portion of the costs. How does the government propose to do it ? If these parties are claiming that they are entitled to land which has been and is in the possession of the government, and it seems to me that the government is now fairly in possession, it is for these parties who are claiming the land to establish their title to it, or at all events, to pay a portion of the expense. Why the government should take upon itself to make a survey of the whole line for that purpose and expend a matter of $20,000, I cannot understand. Does the hon. minister apprehend the point I am speaking of ? It is that in any dispute between adjoining owners the person who is not in possession and who is claiming to obtain possession from the other is the person who enters the proceedings and it will be for the land-owner to have the limits marked out on the ground according to the provisions of the deed defining the boundaries.


Henry Robert Emmerson: In a mere delimitation of bounds that may be correct, but there is other work to be done in connection with this-the preparation of the plans and the fixing of the monuments. I do not think that the parties holding the adjacent properties will be bound in any way to contribute to that. It would not be so necessary to them and I think it is more important for the government to have these bounds fixed because the present state of affairs opens the door to constant claims being pressed. The people are not so much interested in that as the government is.


Haughton Lennox: I cannot see that the hon. minister has made it very clear yet as to the .position we are in in reference to this matter. We have been in possession of the canal for years and years. We must have been using it. We are using the land. In the majority of instances I assume that the adjoining owners along the canal are using their lands. There will be fences in many instances, probably in almost all instances, and in regard to the plan that my hon. friend speaks of, the plan follows the survey ; it does not precede it. You make the survey and then you prepare the plan, I presume. If the hon. minister will tell us how this $20,000 is made up, probably it will be satisfactory, but we have no information as yet on that point. There will be so much time involved, so much for the plan and so on. Will the hon. minister tell us that ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: I have no details of the estimate. The officers have not furnished me with them. I am acting on the estimate prepared for me by the chief engineer of canals and he concluded that this work would cost $20,000. We are asking a vote for that amount. I do not think it is an excessive amount. It cannot exceed that amount because that is the only amount provided, but if it does not cost that amount the whole of it would certainly not be expended.


Haughton Lennox: I do not know whether I quite comprehend what the hon. minister means when he speaks of the estimate. What I understand by an estimate is that a person sits down and takes into consideration the various elements that enter into the various kinds of work and so on, and having set down the figures in detail he then finds out what the total will be. I do not understand that an estimate is a mere guess as the hon. minister says it is. It is simply that the deputy minister instructs him to put down $20,000 and down it goes. He says it may not be expended, but our experience is that when we vote money it is expended, and very often more than expended. We ought to have something more than a mere guess. We ought to have some figures to show how this amount is arrived at. If the hon. minister has such figures he ought to bring them down and if he has not he ought not to ask us to vote this amount until these figures are prepared.


David Henderson: I would like to ask the hon. minister when this work will likely be completed. Will it be done during next summer or will it extend over several years ? It may be that $20,000 is only the thin end of the wedge, only a very small part of the expense necessary. We seem to have a great many of these continuous jobs running on year after year extending over two, three, four, five, or six years. There must be a great many people in this country very happy with such contracts. They seem to make their living out of them. They never seem to come to any termination. This is a policy that we will have to inquire into. Probably this survey bureau to survey the Welland canal is another of these never ending contracts. I would not be surprised if those of us who are here three or four years hence will .still be voting money for the survey of the Welland canal.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I am not furnished with any detailed estimate. This is only the estimate of the chief engineer. This work has become urgent. The work should be done at once and as I am informed by the chief engineer it will be commenced as soon as the vote is available and will be completed certainly within the fiscal year commencing the first of July next. The reason why it is urgent that the work should be done is that in one instance, it is

claimed by the engineers, the bounds of the canal go right through the barn and house of one of the adjoining owners. It is claimed by the department that this man has encroached on the property of the canal by erecting his buildings there.


Samuel Barker: You can ascertain that for $10.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I doubt that very much. I think it will be necessary to make a complete survey of the whole line in order to ascertain with certainty where the monuments should be placed.


Edward Cochrane: How long have the House and barn been there, does the minister know?


Henry Robert Emmerson: No, I do not know ; long enough to create difficulty.


Edward Cochrane: It is all very well for the minister to pass it over so lightly as that, it is very nice to hand out $20,000 of the people's money and then smile.


Henry Robert Emmerson: It is no use to cry
over it.	[DOT],


Edward Cochrane: No, you will not cry. If it was the hon. minister's own money he WQUld not be so happy.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I am very generous.


Edward Cochrane: With other people's money, not with your own. I never heard of your being so generous.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I never had the $20,-
000.


Edward Cochrane: I am not discussing your liberality; the question is what do you know about the subject.


Mr. LEIGHTON MCCARTHY.: Carried.


Edward Cochrane: No, it is not carried. The gentlemen opposite are very Tunny ; I remember years ago when they were not so funny. It is absurd for intelligent men to be sitting here in parliament voting away the people's money and laughing and thinking they are so clever. I would think that the independent members would be serious. They are not tied up by any party ties and I would think that they would want to know where the money is going. I can understand hide-bound politicians but I would think the independents would show some independence. If the work is so important why does the minister not have some information ? He cannot tell where the canal is. This house and barn have been there for years and they do not interfere with navigation and I would like to know why the difficulty has arisen at this time. I should think as the canal was built and deepened by the department that they would have complete plans and specifications in reference to it. I am surprised that the Minister of Customs does not instruct the Mr. EMMERSON.
Minister of Railways and Canals as to the necessity of having fuller information about his estimates. I understand that the Minister of Railways and Canals is a little new here, but the Minister of Customs knows how, when he was in opposition he used to howl about these expenditures.


Haughton Lennox: No, not howl.


Edward Cochrane: No, I take that back, I made a mistake; but he used to make a great deal of noise and tell us that we were spending enormous sums of money and that the people were being bled white. Now he sits there and shakes his hands. I often wonder if he is not saying ' Lord be merciful to me a sinner.'
Lachine Canal, machinery tor shops, $2,300.


Henry Robert Emmerson: This is for some improvements in the workshops, the present ones are entirely inadequate.
Electrical installation, $5,000.


Henry Robert Emmerson: This is Intended to be spent in connection with the electrical apparatus for operating the lock gates and is to protect the lock gates, motors, &c., from the fenders of passing boats. The total expenditure is estimated at $15,000.


Richard Blain: When will this be completed?


Henry Robert Emmerson: Within this liscal year.


Richard Blain: And this will complete the work?


Henry Robert Emmerson: Yes, this is the total cost of that particular electrical work.
Bridge over the canal at Atwater Avenue, $45,000.


Henry Robert Emmerson: This is for the Atwater Avenue bridge over the Lachine canal in Montreal; $40,000 was voted last year, and this is to complete the work. $85,000 is the estimated cost of the bridge including the substructure and superstructure.


Robert Laird Borden: Possibly some of the hon. gentlemen frcm Montreal and vicinity might want to discuss some of these items that we have just passed. That can be done on one of the items that have been reserved. There will be no difficulty about that?


Henry Robert Emmerson: There will be no difficulty.
Some resolutions reported.
Sir WILLIAM MULOCK moved the adjournment of the House.


Robert Laird Borden: What business will be taken up to-morrow?


William Mulock: If the Minister of Marine and Fisheries is prepared to proceed with the legislation that stands in his

name, that will be taken up, and we will go into supply afterwards. If he is not ready to proceed, we will go into supply and continue with the estimates for Railways and Canals.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I shall be prepared to go on with the Canals, but I had promised some hon. gentlemen that before the Railway estimates were taken up, I would give notice of that and make a statement.


William Mulock: Then, as soon as we finish Canals we will return to Public Works.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, House adjourned at 12.15 a.m., Friday.
[Stage Direction]
Friday, February 17, 1905.