1905-02-28

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. S3) respecting the Alberta Railway and Irrigation Company.-Mr. Turriff.
Bill (No. 84) respecting the Huron and Erie Loan and Savings Company.-Mr. Calvert.
Bill (No. 85) respecting the Bay of Quints Railway Company.-Mr. Harty.

Mr. SPROULE.: I desire to ask the right hon. the First Minister if any special instructions have been given regarding the number of Autonomy Bills to be printed ? AVe received one each this morning, and were informed that we could not get any more. It is very desirable that a large number should be printed, because there are many applications for them.


Sir AVILFRID LAURIER.: The government have no objections to printing a sufficient number.



INSPECTION AND SALE OF SEEDS.

[Stage Direction]
House in committee on Bill (No. 7) respecting the inspection and sale of seeds.- Mr. Fisher.
Hon. SYDNEY FISHER (Minister of Agriculture).: AVhen this Bill was before the committee last, some hon. gentlemen took the ground that clause 11 went further than my explanation of what I considered

to be its purpose. I said I would submit their suggestions to the Department of Justice, and asked the officials to draft a clause which would meet the requirements which seemed to be in accord with my intentions and the views of the committee. They suggested a change in clause 11 and also the insertion of two words in clause 10. I move therefore that in clause 10, on the fourth line, after the words ' which he has reason to,' the word 1 suspeet ' be added.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
On section 10-examination of seeds- payment of samples-penalty for preventing examination.
Mr. LENNOX.: The minister changed the penalty under this Bill to a large extent, but the penalty in this clause still remains. It provides for a penalty ' not exceeding $500.' I do not know whether the attencion of the minister has been directed to that point, but I would suggest that this is a very large penalty, particularly having regard to the minister's own suggestion chat the penalty should be made very moderate at the beginning. I am not going to argue the matter but simply call attention to it.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I would point out that this is not a penalty for the contravention of the Act, but for obstructing an officer in the enforcement o,f the Act. I think that an offence of that kind may require a much heavier penalty than would an ordinary offence against the Act.


Haughton Lennox: I agree with that ; but, at the same time, I think that while the Act is new it may happen that when parties enter premises bona fide to carry out the purposes of the Act, those in charge, not having been educated to the new condition of things, may, to some extent obstruct the officer, yet without causing very great inconvenience. As this Bill is educative, as the minister has said, I think that a penalty of less than $500 would accomplish all the purposes sought to be accomplished.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: It would be only in flagrant cases that a penalty of $500 would be imposed by the court. The range of the penalty is from $25 to $500 ; and I think we might leave the discretion with the magistrate.
On section 11,
Any inspector, informant or complainant who finds or has good reason to suspect seeds to be sold, or offered, exposed or had in possession for sale for the purpose of seeding in violation of the provisions of this Act, shall take a sample from the said seeds and forward it to such person as the Governor in Council appoints as an official seed analyst to examine and report upon any seed submitted for analysis under the provisions of this Act.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I wish to amend this section. It will be remembered that the hon. member for South Simcoe (Mr. Lennox) and
others, thought the clause went further than the intention as declared by me and as desired by the committee. I submitted that question to the Department of Justice, and they suggested certain changes which, I think, meet the view of those who objected, and certainly cause the section to express more clearly what I desire. The section as I propose to amend it will read :
Any purchaser of seeds with respect to which he has reason to suspect or believe that any provision of this Act has been violated, or any person charged with the enforcement of this Act at his request may take a sample from the seeds and forward it to such person-
And so on as in the section already printed. That removes any doubt as to who may take this sample of seeds, and puts the section in the form which, I think, we practically all agree it ought to have.


Haughton Lennox: That covers one point very well indeed. But there is another point that, probably, has been lost sight of. The minister will notice that, under section 10, where the official charged with the enforcement of the Act may take samples, there is a provision for payment; and it was urged, when we dere discussing section 11, that there should be similar provision here. That was mentioned when the matter first came up, but, probably, was not adverted to when we subsequently discussed this section. As regards the question of the purchaser taking a sample, the amendment seems to completely overcome the difficulty. But, as regards the person engaged in the enforcement of the Act, there is no provision that he should be entitled to take a sample only upon paying for it. I think that principle should be embodied here, as it has been in section 10.


Mr. FITZPATRICK.: It seems to me that the conditions under section 10 and under section 11 are different. The person charged with the enforcement of the Act goes into premises to see whether the seed kept there is tainted, and takes a sample. There is nothing to suggest impropriety on the part of anybody. But, in the case of section 11, the purchaser complains, practically, that he has been defrauded, that the seed sold to him is not up to the standard set by the Act, and he asks the person charged with the enforcement of the Act to take a sample. There seems to me no reason why that person should be compelled to pay for the seeds.


Haughton Lennox: Evidently, I have not made myself understood. What I have said does not apply to the purchaser-he takes a sample from his own lot of seed. But I call the attention of the Minister of Agriculture and of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Fitzpatrick) to the fact that, under section i0, any person charged with the enforcement of the Act may enter premises and take samples from any sack and so on, for

wliich sample the owner shall be paid at the current value of the seed. I do not see why if you pay in one case, you should not pay in the other. The conditions are exactly similar. With regard to the person who purchases the seed, of course there is no necessity ; but when you come to deal with the person going in and taking samples under section 11, he should be placed on the same basis as the person charged with the enforcement of the Act under section 10.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: From my understanding of the wording of the clause, I think it is clear that the sample would be taken from the seeds purchased, and would be done by the inspector at the request of the purchaser. I move to amend section 11 so that it should read as follows, after striking out the first four lines.
Any purchaser of seeds, with respect to which he has reason to suspect or believe that any provision of this Act has been violated, or any person charged with the enforcement of this Act. at his request, may take a sample from the said seeds and forward it to such person as the Governor in Council appoints as an official seed analyst, to examine and report upon any seed submitted for analysis under the provisions of this Act.


[Stage Direction]
Amedment agreed to.
On section 12,
Sydney Arthur Fisher: To add after the words ' inspector, informant or complainant ' the words ' person taking the same.'


Haughton Lennox: I have not got anything of that kind in my Bill and some of my friends are in the same position. I suppose it has been reprinted ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I think the reprint has been distributed. ' Person taking the same ' is a description which would cover exactly what has been provided.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Mr. BOYCE.: I desire to draw attention to section 17 where it says that the Governor in Council may make such regulations as he thinks necessary in order to secure the efficient enforcement of the provisions of this Act, and may impose penalities not exceeding $50 on any person offending against it. Is that not contradictory of section 8 and section 10? Might there not be an Order in Council inconsistent with the Act ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: An Order in Council could not conflict with the provisions of the Act, it would have to comply with the provisions of the Act.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: What would be the object of having an Order in Council providing for
penalities where specified penalties are provided for by the Act?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: The Order in Council providing penalities would have to be for pen-Mr. LENNOX.
alties not provided by the Act, but they could not be inconsistent with the others so provided.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: Would it not be better instead of having penalities provided by Order in Council for something not specified in the statute, to have a general clause providing for cases not otherwise provided for by the Act?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: It is the usual procedure, when power is given for the making of regulations and rules-within certain limits which are here fixed-to allow the Order in Council to provide the penalties. That is the usual practice in other Acts, and I think it would be as well to comply with that practice here.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: I would point out that this is a penalty and a quasi criminal proceeding and one is entitled to know on the face of the statute the penalty for such and such an offence. Under section S, the limit of the penalty is defined ; then under section 10, w'hieh as the minister points out is not for an infraction of the Act, but the obstruction of an officer, the limit of the penality is -defined, but then we have a limit here to be defined by something not contained in the statute, namely : a penalty to be provided by Order in Council so it would not appear upon the face of the statute with respect to the infraction of clauses penal in their nature. What the penalty is to be, except that there is a limit to the penalty for the infraction of these clauses is not defined. I would submit to the minister that it would be better to have this in a separate clause than to have the penalties dependent on an Order in Council as for instance, in the Criminal Code or the Summary Convictions Act, where penalties are provided for any other infraction of the Act not otherwise specially provided.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: These regulations are not in the Act. The rules and regulations are to be provided by Order in Council and the penalties for the infraction of them are also to be governed by Order in Council. There is a limit ; the Act says that the penalty should not exceed $50. The amount of the fine or the penalty would no doubt be increased in accordance with the gravity of the offence. The Act leaves to the Order in Council the making of the regulations and also leaves, within certain limits-the maximum fine being $50-the amount of the penalty. If we were to undertake in the Act to give the penalties we would encounter many difficulties, because the rules and regulations would differ from time to time and the penalty should differ with them. Therefore I think it is better to leave the penalties for the Order in Council as well as the rules and regulations, and I assure my hon. friend that that is quite in accordance with other Acts where the rules and regulations are fixed.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: I may be very far astray but it looks to me as If tbis Act provided for every known ease of infraction of tbe Act, and it seems a somewhat dubious proposition in connection with the enforcement of this Act for any person to have to consider that there may be offences created, that they may be offending against provisions of this Act of which they have no knowledge whatever, which may be contained in some Order in Council of comparatively recent date. The Order in Council will provide for an offence which the Act does not specially declare to be an offence. That is the danger that I would point out to the minister, that there may be an offence against the rules and regulations and a penalty attached to that offence which does not constitute a part of the Act.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I think experience will teach that we may well leave it in the hands of Council.


Mr. COCKSHTJTT.: Before the Bill is reported I wish to say that I have had great difficulty in hearing the remarks of the hon. gentleman (Mr. Fisher) to-day. Several amendments, very important amendments nc doubt, have been moved, but I have been entirely unable to follow even the wording of the amendments much less to follow the discussion on them. It may be strictly parliamentary, but it is not very edifying that we cannot follow the debate. I have in my hands a very voluminous correspondence on this question occupying a great many pages that I would have liked to have had an opportunity of submitting to the House, so that the gentlemen whose views have been entrusted to me might have been represented, but I could not see any place in the discussion where I could bring them in properly. The amendments suggested have been very far reaching, and I think the matter should not be rushed through in that way without giving hon. gentlemen an opportunity of finding out what the amendments are.


Mr. SAM. HUGHES.: Now that the Minister of Justice is in his place I propose reading a letter addressed to the hon. member for Brantford (Mr. Coekshutt) from a gentleman in the riding I have the honour to represent. I may say at the outset that he is a very prominent Liberal and, I think is the best seed man in the Dominion of Canada. I shall ask the attention of the Minister of Justice to some points which he irakes, in the hope that his broad sense of justice and knowledge of law shall induce him to take hold of the matter and have this Bill put in something like fair-play shape. The letter is from Mr. A. O. Hogg and is as follows :
Oakwood, Ont., Feb. 23rd, 1905.
It is not British justice that two men doing the same act one is allowed to go free and the other is punished. In reference to clause 3, we do not want to do any boasting whatever, but 57
if you will make inquiries from people in the trade you will find that the statement we make will be verified, which is, that our firm has perhaps better equipment than any other firm in Canada for the handling, cleaning, storing and distribution of grain for seed purposes. We have made it a special feature of our business for eighteen years and we think we are situated in as good a section of country, with as high a class of intelligent farmers as can be found in Ontario. In corroboration of this, the four farms immediately surrounding our elevators at Mariposa would sell in the open market to-day for from $95 to $100 per acre, and one of these farms sold last week at $100 per acre, and many farms are of equal value, and the reason that these are so valuable is that they are specially adapted for growing high class cereals and clover seeds. One farm not two miles from our warehouse here has changed hands twice within the last two years at $105 per acre, and upon this farm we have had grown on contract grain for seed purposes, and we have no hesitation whatever in saying that it is utterly impossible to procure sufficient grain for seed that will comply with clause 3 of the Act. You will notice that this clause requires absolute purity unless you wish to plaster your bags with all kinds of weed seeds which may or may not be in the grain, but it would not be safe to sell it without putting them on, and though you had sold a man an assorted carload of seed grain by actual sample, have you any idea as a practical business man that when he received his carload and found the grain exactly like the samples, but with the bags branded with all these kinds of weed names, that he would not refuse to accept the goods, and yet it would not be safe for the dealer to ship the goods without all this disfiguring the bags with branding. Clause 5, however, may be a redeeming feature, as you will note that the government may pass regulations allowing a certain percentage of impurity and still allow it to be' called pure, and yet when you come to clause 6 no matter how much branding you do, it is simply illegal to sell cereals, clover or timothy seeds with a mixture of more than five weed seeds to 1,000, and we want to say that there is not one firm in fifty in Ontario that can produce cereals that will pass this rigid section, and if the farmers cannot grow it how can the dealers supply the demand ? We have paid the farmers a bonus above the ordinary price of grain to Induce them to use their best fields and give their best attention to produce cereals for seed.
Much stress has been laid on the cost of cleaning apparatus for handling seed. Might sav that the cost Of machines used exclusively for cleaning clover and grain for seed purposes by our firm cost over $2,000, and this does not include any machines or power for running them. The elevator we use for seed purposes cost over $10,000, in addition to machines, and it is specially built. All the planking in the bins having been planed on the four sides so as to have a perfectly smooth surface for the walls so that it is impossible for grain to get mixed. Now, what is the use of talking such nonsense as to say that' $800 will put in a cleaning equipment ? What is the use of the cleaners without the power and building to handle the stuff in ? We export large quantities of clover seed and handle a good deal in Canada, and the department seems to overlook the fact that one of the essential things in handling clover seed, as you well know, is that if you sell a man say 200 bags of clover seed of a certain


Arthur Cyril Boyce: Before the Bill is reported I desire to draw the attention of the Minister of Agriculture aud also of the Minister of Justice to subsection 2 of section 8. When the Bill was last in committee, I drew the attention of these two ministers to this apparently extraordinary section which provides :
Nevertheless, if the accused proves to the magistrate before whom he is tried that the package, sack, bag or receptacle containing the seed respecting which the complaint or information is laid, was purchased by him directly from a seed merchant domiciled in Canada, and was not opened, or the state of the seed was not altered, while it was in his possession, and he had no reason to believe that the seed did not comply with the provisions of this Act, he shall, upon disclosing the name of the person from whom he purchased the seed, and the place and date of the sale thereof, to him, not be liable beyond the costs of prosecution.
I submit to the Minister of Justice that the exceptions in the subsection clearly make out a case of immunity under the law. It would be equally just to prosecute both the thief and the innocent receiver of stolen goods, as it would be to prosecute in this case both the principal and the innocent agent. What greater innocency could be established from a legal point of - view than to establish the facts set out in this subsection

that he innocently purchased the seed; that the package was not opened; that its condition was not altered while it was in his possession, and that he had no reason to believe that the seed did not comply with the provisions of this Act. Why. should a retailer who has given proof of all this, be mulcted in the costs of the prosecution. I will submit to the ministers that the words : ' Beyond the costs of prosecution ' should be stricken out of this clause, thus rendering it obligatory as the section provides, that proceedings be instituted against the person domiciled in Canada who is liable under the Act for offences against the Act and who would be guilty. Otherwise, penalties would be visited upon the person who actually was guilty of an offence against this Act, and would also be visited, in the shape of costs, upon the person who innocently was a handler of seed bags, the contents of which he did not know and which in his possession were not altered. A man who merely had a sealed pack-

age in his possession could not be found guilty, and yet this subsection would find him guilty to the extent of making him pay the costs of prosecution. It is a compromise and a compromise against a person who establishes by statutory essentials his innocency, and who notwithstanding has to pay tlie costs of the prosecution, which might be very heavy.


Charles Fitzpatrick: If we ever are to get to the end of this Bill it can only be by observing the rules of the House. This Bill came up for its third reading and it was referred back to the committee for the purpose of reconsidering clauses ten and eleven. So far as I am concerned I am not disposed to reopen the whole question by discussing every clause of the Bill.


William Foster Cockshutt: I suggest to the minister that this Bill should be allowed to stand for to-day. The House has not been able to grasp the meaning of the amendments which the Minister of Agriculture has just read, and it is only reasonable to ask that we should be placed in possession of a copy of these proposed amendments so that we may know what they really are. In view of the very great importance of this measure, the Bill should be allowed to stand until we can study the amendments and discuss them intelligently. The Minister of Justice well said that the discussion should be confined to the clauses that are amended. But we should have a copy of these amendments before us, so that we could look over them and understand what they mean. I hope the hon. minister will let the Bill stand until we have time to look over the amendments.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: I would draw the attention of the hon. minister to the fact that when this clause was under consideration before,, as when other clauses were under consideration, the Minister of Justice was not in his place ; and the hon. Minister of Agriculture admitted that several clauses, as to which there were objections of a technical character, had not been submitted to the Minister of Justice. It was for the purpose of drawing this clause, as well as the clauses under direct scrutiny, to the attention of the Minister of Justice, that I rose.
I think it is sufficiently important to justify me in moving that the Bill be again referred to the committee for the consideration of that point.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I respectfully submit that that is quite unnecessary. We are now in Committee of the Whole, and it is quite competent to move the reconsideration of any clause of the Bill.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I think the hon. member for West Algoma (Mr. Boyce) has a little misunderstood what we agreed upon the other night in the committee. There were-certain doubts raised in regard to clause 11, which I quite admitted might be referred 571
to the Department of Justice, so that it might be made clear that it expressed what I intended and what I gathered to be the sense of the committee ; but I do not think it was intended to refer any of the other clauses or that one which my hon. friend brought up. That clause was discussed at some length and was eventually accepted by the committee, though, of course, my hon. friend did not agree with the decision of the committee. I moved that the Bill be referred back to the committee for the express purpose of amending these clauses 10 and 11. That has now been done, and I do not think it would be in the interest of the Bill or in the interest of the House further to discuss matters which have already been settled. As the hon. member for East Grey (Mr. Sproule) says, there is no need of going out of committee in order to go back into committee. We are now in committee, and any member may move for the reconsideration of any clause in the Bill.


Mr. HAGGART.: Let us clearly understand that. When a Bill is recommitted for the purpose of our considering two clauses, can any other clause be considered 1


Samuel Hughes: I know it is of great consequence to the Minister of Justice to have to sit and listen to this thing ; I know he wishes the Bill were in another climate ; but I think we would like to have him apply his genius to it and make it as perfect as possible.


Charles Fitzpatrick: It is so perfect that I do not see any need of that.


Mr. WHITE.: If the Bill is referred back to the committee for the purpose of considering certain clauses, these clauses only can be considered ; but when the amended Bill comes up for consideration, and the motion is made to read the amendments, then the whole Bill is open for discussion.


Charles Fitzpatrick: Exactly ; that is in the House.


Mr. MACLAREN.: As a farmer myself and also engaged in a business which obliges me to travel all over the country, I may say that no one is more anxious than I to have pure seeds sown on our lands, and no one can feel more disappointed when he sees a farm covered with mustard and all kinds of obnoxious weeds. At the same time I think we had better refer this Bill over to the Agriculture Committee, because that committee is in a better position to get the views of the farmers as to what should be done. I have a letter here from one of the seedsmen of my city objecting very seriously to this Bill passing in the shape in which he received it a few days ago, and he wants it amended in many respects. I am in favour of abolishing by every means weeds as much as possible, but I would like to have something done that would be practicable ; and I

think we should pause and reflect very seriously-before passing a measure such as this,- which may have the effect of making it almost impossible for a man to deal in the seed business at all. I would therefore strongly urge that it would be sent to the Agriculture Committee and let that committee amend and put it in such shape that it will be practicable.
Mr. LAIX)It. May I be permitted to ask whether there is such an organization as the Canadian Seed Growers' Association, and who are the members of that association ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: There is a Canadian Seed Growers' Association, but I could not undertake to give my hon. friend the names of its members. They are spread over a very considerable part of the Dominion of Canada.


Mr. LALOR.: Is not that association organized for the purpose of furnishing pure seed to the people of this country ? and have they not seed for sale, which will be recognized as pure seed 1


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I have nob with me the by-laws of the Seed Growers' Association. I was not even present when the association was formed, having another engagement ; but I understand that the Seed Growers' Association was formed for the purpose of growing improved seed by selection and other means; and I believe that one of the objects of the association is to create a register for pure seeds, somewhat similar to the register for pure live stock, under certain rules, regulations and conditions. I cannot tell what these rules, regulations and conditions are. I am not sure that they have even been formulated.
Mr. COCIvSHUTT. Might I ask the hon. minister if any servant of the Seed Growers Association is in the pay of the government or of the Department of Agriculture ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Yes, I believe the Seed Commissioner of my department is acting as the secretary of that association.


William Foster Cockshutt: Is that not calculated to still further jeopardize the interests of the trade ? If the Seed Growers' Association is provided with servants free of charge, while men selling seeds have to pay their own hands, will not the competition tend to grow worse between the Seed Growers' Association and the seed dealers of Canada ? It is only within the last day or two that my attention has been drawn to the fact that such an organization exists, and if that association is going to raise seed under government paid servants and compete with those who have no such government paid servants, it does not appear to me to be legitimate competition.
ME FISHER. I am not aware that the Seed Growers' Association has anything Mr. MACLAREN.
to do with the sale of seeds. The officer of the department certainly has not. I have no doubt that members of the Seed Growers' Association will themselves sell seeds. One of the objects of the association is to encourage the growing of better seed, but I do not think that will interfere in any way with the business of the seed dealers of the country. On the contrary, I think it will enable them to get good seed from the growers. The object of the Seed Growers' Association is to improve the seed grown, and in that way to aid those who deal in seeds as well as those who grow them.
Mr. COCIvSHUTT. I understood that the object of the association was not only to raise seed, but to sell it direct to those who consume it. That was part of my information which may be wrong, but if it be correct it appears to me that we are creating an unfair competition.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I do not understand that the association has anything to do with the sale of seeds. The men who belong to the association can sell them, just as men who belong to the Live Stock Association can sell their stock.


Francis Ramsey Lalor: Will the Department of Agriculture recommend the seeds grown by the Seeds Association ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: If seeds grown by members of the association were submitted to the association and registered as pure seeds, the department might put its imprimatur oh that register or certificate, just as they would in the case of pure stock, but the department would not recommend that these seeds be bought. All the department would do would be to certify that they came up to a certain standard.


Francis Ramsey Lalor: This will be the germ of competition by the association against ordinary seed gi'owers. The latter will have to compete with an association which is officered largely by men paid out of the public exchequer and connected with the Department of Agriculture, and I am also advised that the Minister of Agriculture is himself a member of the association. It does not seem to me fair that the ordinary seed merchant should have to compete with an organization of that kind. Whether that be the case or not, to the ordinary individual it looks as if the Bill now before the House were in the interests of the Seed Growers' Association ; and, of course, the farmers will naturally go to an association which is so closely identified with the Department of Agriculture. That is not fair to the farmers or seed merchants or the wholesale trade.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: My hon. friend has put the cart before the horse. The Bill is not introduced for the benefit of the association, but the association has, to a large extent, grown out of the agitation in favour

of pure seeds, just as other associations for the improvement of various branches of agriculture have grown out of the knowledge of what can be done by co-operation or organization. Any one who chooses can join the association. There is not even a fee required. X am not a member of it myself. An officer of my department is connected with it at present as secretary, but that is only while it is in its formative stage ; and it is not intended that any officer of my department shall continue long to be an officer of it.


Mr. WALSH.: This association will compete with the other seed growers and sellers.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: The association has no power to sell seed, and its individual members will certainly come under the operation of the law just the same as anybody else.


William Foster Cockshutt: But I understand that under this Bill the deputy minister is to be the judge and jury in determining whether or not certain seeds come up to the standard. If this officer is also an officer of the Seed Growers' Association, will not this happen ? If samples be sent in by two persons, one of whom is a member of the association and the other is not, the outside dealer will be handicapped by the fact that he has to send in his samples to an officer of that association, the members of whieh are competing with him in his business. If an official of the department is also at the head of the association, you may have a combine. It does not seem to me wise that any officer of the department should become an officer of the association, especially when he has to sit in each case as judge and jury. All samples of seeds must be submitted to him ; and if he is interested in the association, that may incline him to lean a little more one way than the other. The fact of his being an officer of the association would probably lead dealers to suspect his decisions, though they might be perfectly right. I would be sorry to see any official of the department connected with a corporation that may compete with private dealers.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: This association does not come into competition with the seed dealers in any shape or form. It is not the deputy minister who is secretary of the association, but the seed commissioner, and he is simply acting as such at the start, and will cease to hold that office within a very short time.


William Foster Cockshutt: I ask that the committee be allowed to sit again for further consideration of the proposed amendments, as it is desirable that we should have an [DOT]opportunity to look over them.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: These amendments are [DOT]simply carrying out what was suggested a few days ago. I am willing to give the House an opportunity to discuss them, however, if the hon. gentleman wants us to reconsider them.


William Foster Cockshutt: The hon. minister thinks we can understand clauses we have not seen at all, though many legal gentlemen differ in their opinions regarding the proposed amendments. It will do them no harm to let them lay over a day or two, and give us a chance to investigate them and compare them with the Bill itself.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: The Bill was referred back for the purpose of thoroughly considering the amendments proposed by the Department of Justice to meet the views expressed the other day.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: There is considerable need for time to consider the amendments, and the question is whether the House has had time to do this. In my opinion, the hon. minister should grant the request of the hon. gentleman from Brantford. It could not interfere with the passage of the Bill afterwards.


Peter White: I would suggest to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Fisher) that he agree to the proposition made by the hon. member for Brantford. For he can see quite clearly that if he refuses that reasonable proposition and the committee now reports the Bill, when the Bill is brought up for third reading, the hon. member for Brantford may move the House back into committee. Ender these circumstances it seems to me that the minister might well yield the point, especially as the hon. member for Brantford has not had an opportunity to consider the amendments proposed in the Bill.
Mr. FISHER, I was going to suggest that we should report the Bill, but not read it the third time to-day. When the third reading is proposed, if my hon. friend from Brantford (Mr. Cockshutt) wished to change it in any way, he can move that the Bill be again referred to the Committee of the Whole to consider these proposed changes. That is the appropriate and simple course.


Mr. TAYLOR.: That will do.
Bill reported.



RAILWAY ACT, 1903, AMENDMENT.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. CHARLES FITZPATRICK (Minister of Justice) moved the third reading of Bill (No. 36) to amend the Railway Act, 1903. He said: This is the Bill we had up the other day with respect to provision for chairman of the Railway Commission.
ill-. HAEGHTON LENNOX (South Sim-coe). I gave the Minister of Justice (Mr. Fitzpatrick) notice that I proposed to move to amend this Bill by striking out section 4. That section reads as follows :-
If, between the date of the appointment of any such chief commissioner or of his resignation of his office as such judge and the date of his resignation of, or retirement from, the office of chief commissioner, the salary attached to the judicial office which he held at the time of
[Stage Direction]
his appointment, or which he resigned for the purpose of accepting appointment as such chief commissioner, has been increased, the annuity to be granted to him under this Act may be increased in the same proportion.
By sections 2 and 3, provision is made that the chief commissioner, being a judge of the Superior Court at the time of his appointment as chief commissioner shall be entitled to the allowance that he would have been entitled to if he had continued in office. These are very considerable advantages, and the section, in this respect, probably goes as far as the circumstances of the country will justify. It has been determined by parliament, that, if a judge holds his office for fifteen years, and, at the end of that time retires from his position through permanent affliction, he shall be entitled to two-thirds of the salary he would be entitled to as judge. And the same Act which so provides contains a further proposition that when a judge attains the age of 75 years and has been for twenty years on the bench, or attains the age of seventy years and has been for twenty-five years in office; or when, regardless of age, he has been a judge for thirty years, he shall be entitled to retire upon an allowance equal to his full salary. Judge Killam, having been appointed from the bench to the chief com-missionership, is entitled to all these advantages, just as if he had continued to be a judge. The Act will apply in every case where we appoint a judge of a Superior Court to the position of high commissioner. Judge Killam has been upon the bench for twenty years and is now fifty-five years of age. He is now appointed to the chief com-missionership. If he continues in that position for ten years, he will, under subsection (e) of section 3 of this Bill, be entitled to full retiring allowance as a judge, and, in the meantime, he will have the advantages that accrue from his new position, as an extra, amounting, in ten years to $30,000. Then, under section 2, he is immediately entitled, if he retires from his position, to a retiring allowance of two-thirds of his salary. The proposition is that, if we change the status of retiring allowances of the judges, the gentleman now appointed, or any who may hereafter be appointed from the bench to the chief commissionership, will be entitled not only to all the benefits that accrue from the office of chief commissionership, but shall be entitled also to all the advantages accruing to those who continue to labour on the bench. I cannot see the justice of that position. It can work a very great injustice in many instances. Why, if we should increase the salaries of the judges to $15,000, the gentleman who takes the position of chief commissioner to-day can resign to-morrow, having been twenty years upon the bench,-he could do so even if he had been there but fifteen years-and can have an allowance of $10,000 a year, which is as great as the present salary of his office.
Haughton Lennox: Either upon resigning his position or retiring because of permanent disability, he would be entitled to all the benefits that would accrue to the judges who continue to discharge the functions of their office. I. object to this as urgently as I possibly can; and I hope that hon. gentlemen on both sides of the House will consider the matter carefully, in order, that no man, however eminent may have the advantage attaching to two positions. As I have shown the increase of salary to Judge Killam by reason of the new appointment is $3,000 a year, or $30,000 in ten years, with all the possibility that the salary attached to the new position may be increased. He would also benefit by salaries of the judicial office hereafter. The gentleman who takes the position of chief commissioner has unlimited time, from the time of his appointment to that of his retirement of his position, which may be twenty or thirty years. He has all the chances accruing to the bench in that time.
Take the instance of Judge Killam as an illustration. He may remain in this position for twenty years, he may have been paid an additional remuneration by reason of that changed position of $G0,000. In those twenty years great changes may take place in this country, and the salaries of judges may be greatly increased, involving an additional retiring allowance which may amount to $15,000-I am speaking of a Supi'eme Court judge. This gentleman would then be entitled by reason of the arrangements we are now making to this additional retiring allowance. I need not say mere about this. I feel strongly that we are moving in the wrong direction if we pass this clause, i therefore move that Bill (No. 36) to amend the Railway Act, 1903, be referred back to the committee to amend the same by striking out paragraph 4 thereof.


Charles Fitzpatrick: As I explained when this Bill was introduced and on several occasions during the progress of the debate in committee, the intention is to provide that a judge who holds the position of chairman of the Railway Commission shall be in no way prejudiced by reason of his acceptance of that office, either with respect to his tenure of office or with respect to his retiring allowance. This clause is merely intended to give effect to that intention with respect to any increase of salary that may affect a judge during the time this commissioner shall occupy his position. Now, this section is as necessary as any of the other sections we have introduced to carry out the object we have in view ; therefore, I am sorry to say I cannot accept the amendment suggested by my hon. friend (Mr. Lennox).


Thomas Simpson Sproule: This seems to me to be class legislation of a most extreme character.


Charles Fitzpatrick: I think we have heard that before.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: You cannot hear a good thing too often. As long as the minister refrains from doing what in our judgment is right, we cannot remind him of it too often. This is made practically for the judges and for no others, and cannot be taken advantage of by any others.


Charles Fitzpatrick: I am afraid that is true.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: It is objectionable in this feature, that it gives him the advantage of a higher position as well as the advantages that may accrue in future from any increase in the salary of judges. I think it is very improper and unjust legislation.
House divided on amendment (Mr. Lennox).
YEAS :
Messieurs
Alcorn,	Lake,
Ames,	Lalor,
Archambault,	Lancaster,
Armstrong,	[DOT] Lennox,
Barker,	Maclean (York, S.),
Barr,	McCarthy (Calgary),
Bennett,	McLean (Queen's, P.E.I
Bergeron,	Martin (Queen's, P.E.I.)
Blain,	Monk,
Boyce,	Paquet,
Chisholm,	Porter,
Christie,	Roche (Marquette),
Clare,	S chaff ner,
Clements,	Sproule,
Cochrane,	Staples,
Cocksliutt,	Stockton,
Crocket,	Taylor,
Elson,	Walsh,
Ganong,	White,
Gunn,	Wilmot,
Henderson,	Wilson
Herron,	(Lennox & Add.)
Hughes (Victoria),	Worthington,
Ingram,	Wright (Muskoka).-17.
Jackson (Elgin),
 NAYS : Messieurs	
Beauparlant,	Lavergne
BSIand,	(Montmagny),
Black,	Law,
Bole,	LeBlanc,
Borden	Lemieux,
(Sir Frederick),	Loggie,
Boyer,	Lovell,
Brodeur,	Maclean (Lunenburg),
Caldwell,	Macpherson,
Calvert,	McCool,
Carney,	McIntyre,
Carvell,	Mclsaac,
Cash,	McKenzie (Bruce),
Clark (Essex), Costigan,
Crawford,
Cyr,
Demers (St. John),
Derbyshire,
Desjardins,
Dubeau,
Ethler,
Fielding,
Finlay,
McKenzie
(Cape Breton, N.), McLennan,
Marcil (Bagot),
Marcil (Bonaventure), Meigs,
Mulock
(Sir William), Oliver,
Parmelee,
Paterson,
Finlayson,	Piehd,
Fisher,	Pickup, j
Fitzpatrick,	PrSfontaine,
Fortier,	Proulx,
Galliher,	Riley, [DOT]
Gauvreau, Geoffrion,	Rivet,
	Roche (Halifax),
Girard,	Ross (Yale-Cariboo),
Gladu,	Savoie,
Gordon,	Schell (Glengarry),
Grant,	Schell (Oxford),
Greenway,	Scott,
Guthrie,	Sifton,
Hall,	Sinclair,
Hughes (King's, P.E.I.), Sloan,	
Jackson (Selkirk),	Smith (Nanaimo),
Johnston	Stewart,
(Cape Breton, S.),	Talbot (Bellechasse),
Johnston (Lambton),	Talbot (Strathcona),
Kennedy,	Telford,
Lamont,	Tobin,
Laurier (Sir Wilfrid),	Turgeon,
Laurier	Turriff,
(L'Assomption),	Watson,
Lavergne	Wright (Renfrew),
(Drum. & Arth.),	Zimmerman.-93.
PAIRS :	
Ministerial	Opposition
Adamson,	Avery,
Belcourt,	Bland,
Macdonald (Pictou),	Borden (Carleton),
Bourassa,	Brabazon,
Bourbonnais,	Broder,
Bureau,	Leonard,
Burrows,	Lewis,
Campbell,	Clarke (Toronto),
Conmee,	'Daniel,
Dyment,	Maclaren,
Emmerson,	Fowler,
Biclcerdike,	Foster,
Gallery,	Tisdale,
German,	Macdonell,
Gervais,	Kemp, ,
Sutherland (Oxford),	Haggart,
Harty,	Reid (Grenville),
Hyman,	Pringle,
Logan,	Lefurgey,
McCarthy (Simcoe),	Northrup,
McColl,	Ward,
Martin (Wellington),	Seagram,
Mayrand,"	Morin,
Miller,	Perley,
Ratz,	Osier,
Wilson (Russell).	Forget.
Amendment-Mr.	Lennox-negatived.
Bill as amended, passed.	read the third time and
THIRD	READINGS.
Bill (No. 51), respecting Contracts for Government Works-Mr. Fitzpatrick.
Bill (No. 53), to amend the Act respecting the Department of Railways and Canals. -Mr. Emmerson.
Bill (No. 54), to amend the Public Works Act.-'Mr. Hyman.



SUPPLY-ABUSE OF FRANKING PRIVILEGES.

Hon.  W. S.@: FIELDING (Minister of Finance) moved that the House go into Committee of Supply.


Mr. H. B. AMES (Montreal, St. Antoine).: Mr. Speaker, before the House goes into supply I wish to raise a question in reference to what certainly seems to me to be an abuse of the franking privilege. A number of my constituents and a number of constituents of other members of this House have, within the last few days, received, franked free through the mails, advertising material from a Montreal house engaged in the sale of dental goods called ' The Franco-American Dental Institute,' manufacturers of and dealers in dental supplies. I have received from various-gentlemen letters from St. Thomas, Ottawa, Montreal, Quebec, Toronto, in fact all parts of tl'e Dominion, from dentists and other persons engaged in similar lines of business, saying that this advertising material which is purely commercial, has been sent to practically all the dentists throughout these two older provinces. This matter was brought to my attention by a business man in Monti eal, in a similar line of wholesale business, who complains that one of his competitors is taking advantage of His Majesty's mails and securing the free distribution of a large quantity of advertising material for purely commercial purposes, and I was informed by one of these gentlemen that if necessary he would produce witnesses to describe what they had themselves seen of tile preparation of this advertising material in a business house in the city of Montreal.


Mr. LANCASTER.: Where were they mailed from ?


Herbert Brown Ames: The letters were apparently al! prepared in the city of Montreal and were then evidently brought here and franked.
Mr. LANCASTER, How were they franked ?


Herbert Brown Ames: They were all franked in the same way. I would like to send these over to the Postmaster General in order that he may himself see the franks to which I refer.


Hon.  W. S.@: Mr. Speaker, I quite agree with the hon. gentleman (Mr. Ames), who has brought this matter to the attention of the House, that the use of the frank for such a purpose as this is certainly contrary to the meaning and the spirit of the Act which allows the franking privilege to members. It 16 not the first time that the franking privilege has been abused ; it is not the first time that I have had occasion on the floor oi the House to call attention to abuses of various kinds. How to prevent these abuses is another thing. In regard to this particular question I have myself received complaints-only to-day, however-and I made inquiry of one of the gentlemen. I find that a number of names or initials have been used. The envelopes which the hon. gentleman has sent to me all bear the initials Mr. FIELDING.
of one member, but other frankings have taken place with the initials of various members, as far as I am able to discover, without the authority of the owner. Nevertheless the practice has grown up in this House of having the initials stamped, and the franks put on by a stamp have been accepted in the post office. Stamps can be obtained or copied and this system affords a very easy way for persons to make this unwarranted use of the franking privilege. Last year my deputy called my attention to the matter and recommended to me that in future we should require the members to sign their names.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Sir WILLIAM MULOCK.: And if this is the wish of the House I am quite prepared to adopt it.


Mr. LOGAN.: The initials would be sufficient.


William Mulock: My hon. friend (Mr. Logan) suggests that the signing of the full name would be to laborious. I am quite prepared to adopt whatever regulation appears to recommend itself to the good judgment of this House. The old system of using a stamp, I think, ought to be abolished. I would draw the inference from the present expression of poinion that the House desires me to prescribe a rule that the frank shall be signed either the full signature or the initials.


Some hon. MEMBERS: The initials.


William Mulock: I am quite prepared to adopt such a regulation. If I can take the opinion of the House in an informal way I would say that the initials have it.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


William Mulock: If I am right therefore, in assuming that it is the wish of this House that in future we shall not accept franking by a stamp, then I will require the initials. I draw that conclusion and will act accordingly.


An hon. MEMBER.: How about the departments ?


William Mulock: The departments frank under the terms of an Order in Council of a good many years' standing. It may be necessary, in view of this expression of opinion from the House, for the government to reconsider that Order in Council. The Order in Council has been in force for about 15 years, having been passed I think, in 1891.


Mr. W. F. MACLEAN.: What the hon. gentleman says applies simply to our own post office.


William Mulock: I am now speaking of our own post office, and I understand that it is assented to by this House that we shall discontinue the use of the

stamp and require the initials of the members. To that extent the change will come into effect at once.


Herbert Brown Ames: There is just one remark that fell from the lips of the Postmaster General to which 1 would draw attention. He stated that in this particular instance these stamps have been used without the authority of the owners thereof. I would like to know whether the use of such a stamp without the authority of the owner is not a grave breach, if not of law, certainly of courtesy to this House, and I would like to ask if any steps are being taken to punish the people who are using stamps without authority ?


William Findlay Maclean: And to collect the postage.


Sir WILLIAM MU  LOOK@: No person is more anxious to protect the revenue of the Post Office Department than myself, but the bon. gentleman will bear in mind that this only occurs, as a rule, about the commencement of each parliament.


Mr. COCHRANE.: And at election times.


William Mulock: 
Peter White: When the Postmaster General is considering this question as it effects members of parliament, I trust he will have some regard to the abuse of the franking privilege by members of the government. For a considerable time before the date of the last election, a very large quantity of literature was circulated throughout the length and breadth of this Dominion and franked by the Postmaster General ; not by one of the deputy ministers but by my hon. friend the Postmaster General himself.


William Mulock: Excuse me, just there. I challenge any one to produce any political literature franked by me during the recess.


Peter White: Then all I can say is that had I known the Postmaster General would deny the charge, I would have had the evidence here to prove the truth of my statement.


William Mulock: I can only say that there is no such evidence in existence.


Peter White: I have in my possession the political literature of one political party -not the party to which I belong but the party to which the Postmaster General belongs-and I know as a matter of fact that it bore the frank of the Postmaster General.


William Mulock: My hon. friend is not fair ; I have denied his statement.


Samuel Hughes: How do you know ?


William Mulock: I do not think it is fair for my hon. friend from Renfrew (Mr. White) to make that statement, because I never gave any such authority, and I am satisfied the thing never occurred.


Peter White: I am glad to hear the Postmaster General say that he never gave authority to frank this political literature with his frank. He may not have given that express authority, but it was a matter of notoriety throughout the province of Ontario at all events, that this literature was being circulated with his frank. I do not know that there would have been quite so much objection to the Postmaster General having adopted that course-


William Mulock: I did not adopt it.


Peter White: Well, from somebody having adopted that course-


William Mulock: No one ever used my frank.


Mr. SPEAKER.: The Postmaster General denies that his frank was so used, and I do not think that the statement should be insisted on.


Peter White: I abide by your decision, Mr. Speaker, and of course I am bound to accept the statement of the Postmaster General that he did not authorize the use of his stamp


William Mulock: Nor was it done.


Edward Cochrane: It was.


Peter White: If the Minister of Justice is in his place, I would like to hear his opinion as to the unauthorized use of those stamps to which reference has been made. I do not pretend to be a lawyer ; I do not know what the legal effect of the use of these stamps by an unauthorized party may

be, but I do think it ought to be punishable in some way.


An hon. MEMBER.: Forgery.


Peter White: I should think it would be forgery. Whatever may be the fact as to the Postmaster General's frank, there is no doubt that this large quantity of literature was circulated through the mails on behalf of the Liberal party. The same privilege was not accorded to the Conservatives. I know that in my own case a newspaper offered to send into my constituency two or three hundred copies of the daily issue during the six weeks preceding the election, and when I accepted the offer it was found that the rules of the Post Office Department precluded the newspapers unless they were put in separate wrappers and postage paid on each. Of course the newspaper proprietor who was willing to supply the papers free could not be expected to pay the postage thereon. It is therefore that I say that this system, not only affected beneficially the Liberal party, but it affected prejudicially the Conservative party during the last election.


Samuel Hughes: I have another matter to take up with the Postmaster General. During the last campaign in my riding there were great parcels containing Liberal campaign literature circulated in my county-I do not know exactly what they were, but as nobody read them it makes no difference. The last letter of the frank used was a ' B,' but I cannot say whether it was the initial of the member for Ottawa or not. I want to ask the Postmaster General, if he knows that these things were franked through the mail outside of the session, by some member. I also want to ask the Postmaster General if he gave any order to the various postmasters throughout the country to allow this literature to be posted at the local post offices with these franks on ; did he give the postmasters authority to accept a frank at the local post offices instead of having this mail matter posted at Ottawa ? We might as well have the Postmaster General on record.


William Mulock: I am quite prepared to be on record. In reply to the hon. member for North Renfrew, I here say the stamps used in the Post Office Department are in accordance with the Order in Council passed many years before we took office. My official stamp is under the control of my private secretary. I know him too well as a reliable officer to believe for one moment that he ever allowed my stamp to be used for the franking privilege during the election to which my hon. friend has referred-I am speaking of during the recess, or since the prorogation of parliament, and that is to what the hon. gentleman alludes. Knowing the fidelity of iny private secretary, I am satisfied, as I am Mr. WHITE.
of my existence, that he never allowed my stamp to be so used, and I am sure it never was used during the recess in question for the transmission, through the mail, of political matter such as is spoken of now. Since my hon. friend (Mr. White) is so positive about it and states that if he knew the matter was coming up he could produce proof, I would ask him to do so at the earliest possible moment.


Peter White: I shall endeavour to do so.


William Mulock: I shall investigate the case, for I know that under no circumstances did I ever sanction such a thing being done. As I have said, I have too much confidence in the fidelity of my secretary, to think that even by accident he would allow it to be done ; nothing could be further from my practice or my wishes. I did send some political literature myself when I was a candidate during the recess, and I sent it from Ottawa; but I purchased stamps in the ordinary way from the post office, and every piece of that literature bore one of His Majesty's stamps in accordance with Post Office Act.


George Taylor: Everybody ought to do the same.


William Mulock: I think so, and I will tell you of a very bad example. When I took office in 1896, one of the first instances of abuse of law brought to my attention was that some 240,000 pieces of political literature were sent out after the prorogation of 1896 under the frank of the then Minister of Agriculture. The postage on that would have amounted to thousands of dollars. It was an abuse then and it is an abuse now, and I will not defend it no matter what minister or cabinet permits it. My hon. friend (Mr. Sam. Hughes) asked me if I authorized or knew of the matter to which he referred. When I say I did not authorize, I also mean that I have no knowledge of any such transaction. I do not know whether it occurred or did not occur. No local postmaster would have the right to allow to go through his post office free any mail matter originating there as described, and if my hon. friend would give me the name of the postmaster who did so, I will have an investigation into the case and see where the responsibility is.


Samuel Hughes: When the literature came into the county of Victoria it had no postmark on' it, but only a monogram, the last letter of which w.as a plain B. This literature was sent to every elector in the riding which I have the honour of representing, Liberal and Conservative alike, with the compliments of the Liberal Association. Why were the packages not stamped at Ottawa ? I presume that some arrangement was made by which they were sent out in bags. I could not understand that they were 1 franked by any minister. I thought the

initials were those of the member for Ottawa.


William Mulock: If the hou. member will produce to me any of this franked literature, I will endeavour to trace it up. On his vague description of the fiy.uk I cannot know anything about it. But on no occasion have I authorized any violation of the law. Exception is taken now, and very properly taken, to the franking of these advertisements of dental goods. Last year my attention was called to another equally grave abuse-the franking of literature issued by the Manufacturers' Association of Canada, and sent everywhere. I received a complaint from a citizen of the town of Brockville, informing me that there had been such a deluge of that class of mail matter sent from Ottawa to Brockville, I think under the frank of my hon. friend from South Leeds (Mr. Taylor) that the office was blocked with it for two or three days, and in that interval he was unable to get the despatch of his mail matter. So that hon. members will see that the abuse complained of as occurring, perhaps at the instance of new members, did not begin to-day.


Edward Cochrane: I think it would be pretty easy for the hon. Postmaster General to find out where all this literature came from when it was mailed in Ottawa. Not only was it sent to the electors of the riding I represent, but they had the impudence to send it to me, and when I opened it I found that it had the compliments of my opponent on it. The hon. Postmaster General holds up his hands in holy horror, but I do not see why my opponent should have some gentlemen, whose salaries are paid out of the funds of the people of Canada, stamping his literature in Ottawa and the post office robbed of its legitimate revenue for carrying it. Now, that literature was stamped by some minister. It was done in a sly kind of way. The literature that came into East Northumberland was not stamped with a stamp. There was on it an imitation of some letters that
1	could not make out. But the work was done in some of the departments, otherwise the post office at Ottawa would not have accepted the literature and sent it all over the country. It had in it those pointers Nos. 1,
2	and 3 which the Minister of Customs paid for out of the money of the people of Canada, and I thought it was rather cruel to rub the fact in in that way. I do not know whether this literature did hurt me any or not. I was returned, though they did their best to defeat me, not only by means of that literature, but by means of a lot of money which I suppose they got out of this railroad scheme.


Haughton Lennox: With regard to the question referred to by the Postmaster General, as to whether the House was of the opinion that the franking privilege as it was formerly understood
should be continued or discontinued, I do not see that any difficulty would arise from asking members to put their initials on letters, but great difficulty will arise if we cannot use our ordinary stamps for sending out the kind of literature which we often send out, such as speeches and blue books. It is undoubtedly in the interest of the public that the proceedings of parliament should be known, and naturally the people of a riding are more interested in the speeches of their own member than in the general proceedings of the House. Therefore, I think an intermediate course might be adopted by allowing franking by stamp upon literature inclosed in Hansard envelopes and requiring letters to be initialled.


Mr. HENDERSON.: I desire to say just a few words with reference to the matter brought to the attention of the House by the hon. member for Montreal. For some time prior to the last general election, the county of Halton was flooded with literature sent out from Ottawa. I would not have objected so much to the fact that that literature was sent free, as to the fact that my opponent should have had the privilege of flooding the county with literature free of postage, whilst I was debarred from the same privilege. The franking privilege of members of parliament ceases of course at prorogation, but in my case, as in that of the hon. gentleman from Northumberland, an official of the government used his franking privilege on behalf of my opponent and of course was not willing to extend the same favour to me. But what made the thing more objectionable still, was that not only were pointers one, two and three distributed all over the country, with the picture of the Prime Minister on the front page, but these pointers were stamped with the compliments of my opponent. That I thought was carrying the thing a little too far. I would naturally have assumed that this literature was sent out by the government in their own interest as campaign sheets, but when it was also found to contain stamped inside the compliments of my opponent, the matter became a personal one. The hon. the Postmaster General is perfectly right in his contention that the department should be protected somewhat better than it is. I do not say that he is aware of the practice I have referred to, but certainly it was a grave abuse of the franking privilege. It was not an abuse of that privilege by any member of this House but by some official of the government. We should have an investigation to find out who the official was that put his frank upon what was not simply campaign literature but private matter, made private by the fact that the compliments of the candidate were stamped inside. Had that matter been paid for in the usual way, it would have cost probably $400 or $500 to send it out.


An hon. MEMBER.: Whose frank was on it ?


David Henderson: I am unable to say. I searched through the civil lists to find out initials that correspond to those stamped on this campaign literature but could not find any. Of course they may have been the initials of some official who had been appointed after the last civil service lists were published. I do not know that even those packages went through the post office of the House of Commons, but I am under the impression that they were mailed direct from some department of the government, and that department should be held responsible. That is the practice which the Postmaster General is quite justified in saying we should not put up with. No doubt he will carefullly investigate it and see whether he cannot exercise some control over his colleagues.


George Taylor: The hon. the Postmaster General was told a few moments ago by some one behind him that during last session commercial literature published by the Manufacturers' Association was distributed through the post office at Broekville bearing the frank of the hon. member for South Leeds. I have been a member of this House some twenty-one years

I think the Postmaster General and myself came in the same day-and during all that time I have never violated the franking privilege. During the session I have the right, as has every member, to send all mailable matter through the post office free, and as whip of the party it has devolved upon me in the sessions preceding general elections to send out literature to constituencies not represented on this side of the House. Last session certain literature was prepared by the Manufacturers' Association, but it was not commercial literature. It was literature intended to convince the people of the great value of protection to our Canadian industries.


William Mulock: Was it of a
non partisan character ?


George Taylor: To a certain extent it was, and it certainly was not of a commercial character. It was pointing out the value of protection and showing up the hypocrisy of this government in pretending to be antiprotectionists while at the same time they did not dare carry out their principles but felt compelled to steal the clothes of their oppponents. That was the class of literature that I franked last session, but while the opposition sent out hundreds of pounds-


William Mulock: Carloads.


George Taylor: The Reform party and its whips and the officials of the different departments were sending out tons to every hundred pounds we sent, and the campaign literature was mailed free from the public departments, franked by the officials of this country, during recess, when we had to pay *out of our own pockets for every pamphlet we mailed. I have at home one of these Mr. HENDERSON.
documents that came to me just preceding the campaign, franked by a government official, which I shall be happy to produce to the House whenever required. In direct contravention of the law this literature was sent out during recess by officials of the government and every riding of the country flooded with it. I have some of it franked by the Minister of Trade and Commerce and some that came last fall bearing the initials 'J. S., M.P.'


William Findlay Maclean: John Smith.


George Taylor: No, they are the initials of the Minister of Public Works. Some two or three years ago, during recess, Mr. Britton received a pamphlet with my frank on it, and the charge was made against me in the local press that I was franking literature during recess when I had no right to do it. I offered to make a wager that I had not.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.


George Taylor: And there it remained while the House was in session, detained by the Postmaster General or somebody else ; and it did not leave Ottawa until last fall. And, from reports I get from all over the country, I am certain that much of the literature that was mailed here during the session never reached its destination until the elections were over-impounded by the Postmaster General or some of his officials.


Samuel Hughes: If I might interrupt to ask my hon. friend a question, I would like to know if he is aware that literature mailed here during the session by thousands of copies by your humble servant, for instance, has never reached its destination yet ? I am told that eight hundred bags of such literature franked from this House is in some subterranean passage of the post office of this city, and there remains to this day.


George Taylor: It may be that the literature that my hon. friend from Victoria (Mr. Sam. Hughes) refers to met the same fate as that sent to a postmaster in the west, who admitted that all the literature of that kind that came to his office he put in the stove.


Samuel Hughes: There are lots of honest postmasters.


George Taylor: This literature may have been put in the stove without leaving Ottawa at all.


Samuel Hughes: No ; I am told that eight hundred bags of it are stored in this city.


George Taylor: Perhaps the Postmaster General will have that investigated. It will be interesting to know if this amount of mail matter, which should have gone forward as soon as it was put in the charge of the post office, is still stored in this city. I want to repeat that during my twenty-one years in parliament I have never used my


frank illegally. But the Postmaster General and his colleagues have franked campaign literature to be sent out during the recess, when the law giving the members of parliament the franking privilege does not apply.


William Mulock: The hon. gentleman said I did.


George Taylor: I did not say the Postmaster General (Sir William Mulock), but his colleagues. I have had some of this literature in my own constituency, and so have my hon. friends about me-my hon. friend from Renfrew (Mr. White), my hon. friend from Northumberland (Mr. Cochrane), my hon. friend from Halton (Mr. Henderson) and others. Our constituents received that literature-Pacts for Electors, Nos. 1, 2 and 3-inclosed in envelopes provided by the government, and mailed during the recess under frank, sent out with the compliments of our opponents, and sent out illegally. Whereas, to distribute our campaign literature during the recess, we had to buy postage stamps just as the Postmaster General had to do in his own case.


Mr. DERBYSHIRE.: That is too bad.


George Taylor: It was too bad for us, but my hon. friend from Broekville (Mr. Derbyshire) could have his sent out free, even though it was in plain violation of the law.


Mr. J. FINLAY (East Peterborough).: I am surprised that my Conservative friends should talk as they do. I received campaign literature from my opponents, and it was franked by Mr. Carscallen, and stamped * with the compliments ' of John A. Six-smith, my opponent. That literature was received, not only by many of my friends, but even by myself.


William Foster Cockshutt: In view of the facts adduced, I think the hon. Postmaster General (Sir William Mulock) ought to withdraw his statement that new members have abused the franking privilege. I hope he will not include the members on this side, because I think that ample testimony has been brought forward to show that this privilege was abused in former parliaments. I think that to cast an imputation upon the new members of abusing this privilege is not right.


William Mulock: My hon. friend from South Leeds (Mr. Taylor) says that he never illegally stamped any literature-never made an illegal use of the franking privilege. I will admit that the law does not specify the kind of literature that may be franked by members of parliament during the session ; each member is left to be the judge of his own conduct in the matter. The literature that my hon. friend franked by tons, the editor of which, I think, was Mr. Griffin-I had quantities sent to me-was not political literature ; did not purport to
be political literature ; and I think the organization that caused it to be printed would resent the statement that they were a political organization. My hon. friend from St. Antoine, Montreal (Mr. Ames), objects to the franking of literature such as has been referred to, that is literature of a commercial character. Well, what was the literature sent out by hon. gentlemen opposite last year ? It was of a commercial character.


Some hon. MEMBERS: No, no.


William Mulock: It was not political literature.


Samuel Hughes: Yes, it was.


George Taylor: It was national political literature.


William Mulock: It was not political literature according to the definition of my hon. friend and others ; it had no bearing upon elections ; and, therefore, it ought not to have been sent out under frank. Yet it was sent out in such quantities as to conjest the mails in Broekville and other places, even to the extent of blockading the work. As to the observation of my hon. friend from Victoria (Mr. Sam. Hughes), that eight hundred bags of literature, franked by himself, did he say ?


Samuel Hughes: No ; but franked by the Liberal-Conservatives in this House, who have a perfect right to frank it.


William Mulock: It is always with great fear that I venture to cross swords with my hon. and ferocious friend from Victoria (Mr. Sam. Hughes) ; but if I might, with all mildness, suggest something, I would say that I am satisfied he is entirely in error. Mail matter mailed in this House, no matter by whom, is delivered to a man who is an officer of the House. He is not under the orders of the government or of the Postmaster General-he is an officer of this House, and is amenable to this House. And my hon. friend from Victoria' says that eight hundred bags of literature posted last session here are still concealed somewhere in the precincts of this building.


Samuel Hughes: No ; in the city post office.


William Mulock: Why, that is simply absurd. The city post office was nearly burned down


Hance James Logan: That is what burned it.


William Mulock: I should not be surprised if Providence did smite the post office for that. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Sam. Hughes) says this literature was stored in the basement of the city post office. That building was burned from the roof down to the working floor, and we had immediately- to take possession of the basement and fill it with the staff. And they have been in occupation of the basement

ever since-that is, for more than a year, or
from a time beginning long before the posting of this literature last session. So the hon. gentleman will have to find some other place in which to charge that this literature is stored, for it could not be in that building. Now, the hon. gentleman has made a statement. Let him prove it. Let him give me some inkling of facts so that the matter may be looked into.
Mr. COCHRAiNE. Will you appoint a *commission ?


William Mulock: I will investigate the case. I say that the postmaster and the acting postmaster of Ottawa are as reliable gentlemen as are to be found in the service, and they would be the last persons in the world to do the thing the hon. gentleman (Mr. Sam. Hughes) Isays has been done. Therefore, I feel certain that no such thing has occurred as the hon. gentleman has charged.


Edward Cochrane: The hon. gentleman (Sir William Mulock) had better investigate what has occurred. I say that during last session many communications were received from Liberal candidates throughout Canada which contained campaign literature sent from Ottawa under frank, and marked ' with the compliments ' of some candidate in opposition to the Conservative party. It is true that Conservative members in this House sent out literature under frank. But this they had a perfect right to do, as the Postmaster General knows, for it was posted during the session. And he wants simply to draw a red herring across the track. But our complaint is that the Postmaster General or any other minister of the Grown lias no right to send out documents during the recess from their departments other than reports and official documents. But they went further. After the session they uot only sent out this literature, but they had the hardihood to put our opponents' compliments on it, and that was done with the stamp, no doubt, paid for by the people's money. That is wbat we complain of.
I don't want the Postmaster General to delude public opinion by saying, ' Oh, you are another.' We have got sick and tired of that.	The Postmaster General tried
to use his authority to prevent us from using our privileges as members of parliament last session in sending out literature and having it brought into the House. We have a perfect right during the session to send out literature and stamp it, and we will accord to the Postmaster General and his ministers the same privilege we enjoy. But after the session was over, when we were right upon the heels of an election, I complain that we had literature that was written by our hon. friend's secretary, when we were paying him a salary for doing it, and that was sent out with the likeness of Sir Wilfrid Laurier upon it; and then to add insult to injury, they put on Sir WILLIAM MULOCK.
that literature ' with the compliments ' of our opponents.


William Mulock: My hon. friend said they had a perfect right during the session to frank whatever they liked.


Edward Cochrane: I did not.


William Mulock: Perhaps he intended to say that. It is not a question of legal right, it is a question of propriety and good taste. If any gentleman franked these advertisements of dental supplies, I presume he can find nothing in the law to make it illegal ; yet public opinion in this House is against such an abuse; and I think public opinion is also against the abuse I referred to of transmitting through the mails, even during the session, of matter which is not properly parliamentary literature and connected with public life. It is equally improper 5nd illegal after the session, in my opinion.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: While this subject is under consideration I want to say that it is generally believed, and 1 think with good grounds for the belief, that a large amount of literature which we sent out from this House last session never reached its destination. I know for a fact that when the campaign was on at various places in my riding, I inquired whether they had received literature from Ottawa during the session, and in many cases the answer was that they had not. I addressed that literature, I franked it and sent it out, it went into the post office here, and where did it go after it left here? It was in the possession of the Postmaster General's employees, there is no doubt whatever of that, and some person must have made away with it, because it never reached its intended destination. I believe the same thing took place in many portions of this country, literature addressed and franked here, with the compliments of our opponents on it, was sent all over our county.


William Mulock: Both sides did it.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: No, I never saw or heard of it being done except by the Liberal side.
I know that my opponent had his compliments put on the literature that was sent out, and some was sent to myself, while the election was going on, and it was distributed all over my riding. When I went into North Grey, I found some distributed there, presumably from Ottawa. Now that was improper and illegal. I could not ascertain whose frank had been used, because the letters were so blurred that you could not read them. In some cases there were letters but you could not fix it on any member. It was sent out in large quantities. Certainly that went through the post office, and it was supposed to have come from Ottawa, and it was franked with the compliments of my opponent on it. I think

that was very wrong. A privilege that was enjoyed by one side ought to be enjoyed by the other side as well. It was illegal and improper, yet it was done. Now I have sometimes questioned whether the explanation was that this literature never went from Ottawa, or whether it was intercepted at Toronto or some other point on its destination, or whether it was made away with by some of the Postmaster General's friends, the postmasters throughout the country. I have sometimes wondered whether it might not be the case that it was made away with by the postmasters, and that opinion was strengthened by the fact that was brought to our notice last session, namely, that away out in the Northwest Territories our literature was deliberately thrown into the fire by the postmaster and burned. That was stated in this House for a fact, and there was no contradiction. I do not know whether the postmaster was ignorant of his duties, but he was known to be a friend of the Postmaster General and his supporters ; but he never even handed out the stuff from the post office, it was sent out and burned.


William Mulock: Would the hon. gentleman give me the name of that postmaster?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I do not remember the name now, it was in the Yorkton district. The statement was made in the House, and the name of the postmaster was given in the House, and attention was drawn to it; therefore I am within my rights in referring to it again. Although I cannot give the name from memory, I am sure the name can easily be found and given to the Postmaster General. That took place in one portion of the country, may it not have taken place in any other portion of the country? I am not saying that is the case, but at any rate it is a fact that can be established beyond question that many parties to whom literature was mailed here during the last session of parliament, never received it. I think it would be quite in order for the Postmaster General to inquire into many of these cases and ascertain where the abuse takes place.


Mr. A. ZIMMERMAN (West Hamilton).: I am glad that this matter has come before the House. I think that many people are guilty of abuse of the franking privilege to which allusion has been made. We know that that has always been done by both parties ever since we have had a government in this country. I have a letter that I received this morning from one of my constituents, in which he complains that business literature is being franked to different business concerns in this country. I will read the letter :
There is another matter which I have been requested to bring to the notice of the Postmaster General through you. The dentists here,
and no doubt throughout the country, received the inclosed sealed package containing advertisements and price lists, and franked by a member of parliament. I do not know whether that is a customary practice or not, but it struck some of my friends and myself as savouring of a breach of parliamentary privilege, and has given rise to considerable criticism in certain circles. X leave the matter in your hands to do as your judgment dictates.
Now, Sir, if it is the rule, or the law, to allow that kind of matter to be franked, I trust the government will immediately take steps to put a stop to it. It is unfair to other business men, it is unfair to the whole country, that public money should be used to convey advertisements going from this House by the thousands every day. I would like to ask the Postmaster General whether it is customary to allow private advertisements to be franked by members of parliament, and by members even who have no interest in the business, so far as we can see. So far as I can make out the member had no interest whatever in the business of this firm.


Samuel Hughes: Whose frank is it?


William Mulock: The subject to which my hon. friend from Hamilton alludes was brought up by anothe member of this House some time ago during this session and I then gave an explanation which will appear in ' Hansard.' My hon. friend will perhaps be willing to read my explanation in ' Hansard ' given to the hon. member for St. Antoine division (Mr. Ames) because he refers to the very same abuse to which my hon. friend from Hamilton West (Mr. Zimmerman) refers.


Samuel Hughes: Would the hon. gentleman be good enough to tell us whose frank was used ?


Adam Zimmerman: I have not the envelopes in my possession at the present time, I have sent them to the Postmaster General.


Samuel Hughes: Does the hon. member know whose frank it is ?


Adam Zimmerman: It is the Dental Supply Company's circular and price-list.


Samuel Hughes: How can the member make the statement that the gentleman whose frank was used had no interest in the business if he does not know who he is ?


Adam Zimmerman: I made some inquiries, and my impression was that the member was not in the business.


Hon. JOHN COSTIGAN (Victoria, N.B.).: While this matter is up, I would like to say a few words on it because my attention has been drawn to it before and I have discussed it with a number of members. There is another feature about the franking privilege which has not been touched on. In former years it was a greater convenience

to members than it is to-day for we used to be able to frank our letters with our initials or our stamp and we could mail them from our hotels or private residences at the nearest post office box in the city, which was a great privilege. An abuse grew up and the attention of the House was called to the fact that the initials were easily imitated, and this led to such an abuse that the Postmaster General of the day very properly put a stop to that system and ordered that our frank should be good only in the post office in the House of Commons. It is a great inconvenience not to be able to post letters at post boxes through the city and to have to bring them here to the House of Commons. Those who discussed the question know that there is good reason for res-tr'eting the privilege to the House of Commons post office, but we suggest to the Postmaster General that he might extend that privilege so that any member who chose to frank a letter by writing his full name on it could post it in any part of the city. There would be little danger of the full name being imitated, while there was evidence that initials were being frequently copied. Members have received several letters from the post office with apparently their initials, although they had never seen the letters. The Postmaster General has said that he would accept a suggestion in favour of doing away with the stamp and requiring the use of initials. That is all right, but I ask him to take into consideration the suggestion that such members as choose to frank their letters with their full names should be allowed to post them at any post box in the city.


David Henderson: Mr. Speaker, I simply desire to ask the hon. gentleman who made the statement a few moments ago (Mr. Finlay) with reference to literature that went into his riding, whether the literature was franked during the last session of parliament or after the House prorogued. W e on this side got the idea that he was referring to literature sent out after the conclusion of the last session, whereas, I rather think the literature the hon. member refei'S to was sent out during the last session, quite correctly' under the regulations. I would like the hon. gentleman just to state the case.


John Finlay: It was before the election.


Samuel Hughes: During the session ?


John Finlay: No, after the session.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House went into Committee of Supply.
At six o'clock, committee took recess.
After Recess.
Committee resumed at eight o'clock.
Archives, $20,000.
Sydney Arthur Fisher: The increase in this vote over Mr. COSTIGAN.
that of last yrear is due to the very large expansion of the work in connection with this branch of the department. About a year ago an archivist was appointed and new duties were allotted to him. A report was made to Council which authorized the transfer of various documents in other departments to the archivist's branch and the archivist was given the custody of these records. A building is needed to house these documents ; that building is now under contract and the contract requires it to be finished on the 1st of next October. We will then transfer the documents from all the departments, classify them, catalogue them and place them in such form that they will be available to the public for reference. This will involve more work in that branch. In addition, I had the new archivist inquire into the condition of affairs in the archives branch and make a careful examination. There was no catalogue of the papers which are called the Archives of Canada and this made it very inconvenient for students of our history. The work of cataloguing is advanced to a considerable extent and will be pressed to completion. In connection with the copying in Paris of documents which bear on the early history of our country, I may say that for years we had two gentlemen there, Mr. Marmette and Mr. Richard, who had chosen out documents which referred particularly to the French regime in Canada and these gentlemen reported that these documents ought to be copied and placed in our archives. A large number of such documents have been chosen, but a comparatively small proportion of them has been copied and sent out here. A certain expenditure has been made each year in this work.


Mr. MONK.: Who is in charge of that ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Mr. Tantet an officer of the French government in the Bibliotheque Frangaise has been in charge of the aetual copying work. It is considered that there is no necessity to spend further money on the selection of these documents until we have made more progress in copying those which have already been selected. Under Air. Tantet, expert coypists of the libraries in Paris are engaged in this work, which we wish to press forward more rapidly than in the past. In addition to the archives in Canada and to the records of the other departments under the control of the government, there are a very large number of important historical documents and papers scattered throughout private libraries, in some cases in the possession of private individuals, and in other cases in possession of various local historical societies. It would be impossible to get copies of these documents within any reasonable period of time, but the greater number of them are available to the public under certain restrictions, and it is proposed to publish a guide to these documents, indicating their existence, where they are to be

found and what their character is. The student of history will be able to refer to this guide which can be prepared at a comparatively small cost. One thousand dollars will be devoted to that purpose. Also, there are a large number of historical documents bearing on Canada, not only in Paris but in Great Britain as well as in Spain, Italy and other continental European countries. We wish to find out where these are, and what their nature is so as to be able from time to time to obtain copies. I think the House and the country will agree with me that this subject of the collection and preservation of our archives is one of great interest and importance, and that it is time we should take the necessary steps to secure a systematic and efficient administration of this branch of the department.


Mr. STOCKTON.: I fully agree with what has been said by the minister as to the desirability of acquiring all historic documents and data that we can possibly get to be placed in our archives for the benefit of Canada. If, however, the minister would endeavour to get the original documents which are scattered throughout the country, instead of copies of them, it would be very much better, because it is always an object on the part of the original investigator or the historical writer to consult the original documents. I am glad to know that such progress has been made and is being made with respect to the documents in Paris. I would like to know what progress is being made with respect to the documents in the record office or in the foreign office in London. At the time of confederation all the public documents of the province of New Brunswick were taken to London, and consequently those who take an interest In historical studies have been at a great disadvantage as far as New Brunswick is concerned. I think the additional amount will be well expended if it is used in collecting historical data with respect to the Dominion of Canada. Every year that passes will make it more difficult to collect that data, and the more vigorous we are in attempting to collect it now, the better it will be for the archives department and for the future writers of the history of our country.	*


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I am very glad to hear what my hon. friend has said, and I quite agree with the expressions he has used. 1 would like very much to get the original documents, and whenever we can we do so to the extent of our finances, but in very many instances the owners do not wish to part with oi'iginal documents, and then we have to take copies. This is the case almost entirely in Europe. For a number of years past we have been spending about $5,000 a year on the other side of the Atlantic, of which about $1,000 has been spent in Paris and about $4,000 in London. The great bulk of the copies we have received in our archives 1 58
library here have come from London, and not from Paris. Out of three thousand volumes which we have in our archives, only 229 have come from Paris. Each of these volumes contains a number of documents, so that the three thousand volumes would represent about half a million documents. I have been myself almost startled at the figures that have been given me of the number of documents we have in our archives. There are about half a million documents there besides the bound books. A little while ago we received from the Secretary of State's Department alone over a million documents to take charge of and look after; but we had not sufficient accommodation or facilities for dealing with them. That is one reason why it is so necessary that we should have a new fireproof building where these documents could be safely stored, classified, catalogued and made available. At the present time, in the various departments, the great majority of the documents are stored away in boxes in out of the way corners and rooms and are quite inaccessible, and in many instances there does not seem to be anybody who knows what these boxes contain. We shall have to take these documents and put them in a building where they will be safe, and then classify and catalogue them. This is a part of the work to be done as soon as the new building is ready.


Alfred Augustus Stockton: I had occasion three or four times to consult the archives in Ottawa and the arrangements seemed to me to be very good indeed. I was anxious, a few months ago, to get some documents respecting the early history of New Brunswick, and I went to the archives department and in a very short time got copies of just what I wanted. They had not the originals, but they had copies which had been obtained from the offices in London. Therefore, I think we ought to feel somewhat proud that we are getting along as well as we are respecting the archives of Canada.


Mr. INGRAM.: Has the minister enlarged the distribution of the report of the archives?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: The report is printed as a parliamentary blue book. It is parliament that decides the number to be printed.


Andrew B. Ingram: I understood the minister to state two or three years ago that he was going to supply the high schools with copies of these reports ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: The printing of that report is under the control of the House of Commons, not of the department, and the number of copies to be printed is decided by parliament through the printing committee. We have no control over it. We simply have a certain number of copies supplied to us * as a department.


Andrew B. Ingram: I understood that the minister was going to recommend a larger distribution of these reports.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: If I made that agreement, It has escaped my memory. We have had a mailing list of the copies supplied to us, just as we have had a mailing list for our departmental reports, and we have always been able to meet any demands that have come to us.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Does the report show what number of documents have been copied in England or in France during the year or the expense incurred ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: We spend just a little under $5,000 each year in Europe. I have not any figures to show the number of documents copied. The people in London are engaged by the High Commissioner's officers and those in Paris are engaged by Mr. Tan-tet, an officer of the Bibliotheque Franc,-aise, and are paid at a fixed rate per folio. One of the objects in asking for this greater expenditure is to increase the number of those working in Paris and have the documents copied more rapidly.


Andrew B. Ingram: Will the hon. minister explain the item of $1,000 on page D-31 of the Auditor General's Report, paid Wm. M. Kearns for some books ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: That was the price of some books sold by Mr. Kearns, auctioneer, for the estate of the late Hon. Louis Masson, of Montreal. We think we have made a very good bargain. There were United States purchasers bidding against us, but we were able to secure the works, and immediately afterwards were offered a very considerable sum over what we paid for them if we would allow them to go to the United States. They are works of the greatest historical interest and our experts, Messrs. Sylvaiu, Suite and Descelies, librarians, very strongly recommended us to get them even at a figure very much higher than we bought them for.
General statistics, 818,200.


Andrew B. Ingram: There is an item concerning which I would like to ask a question. I was not here when it passed. Each member b supplied with a monthly report of the Patent Record unbound. At the end of the year we have 12 copies. Why should members not he supplied with a bound volume containing the 12 monthly reports ? I appreciate these reports very highly because 1 receive a number of inquiries concerning them every year. There is another point I would submit to the hon. gentleman. If you want to get a type written copy of the explanation of any patent, you have to pay a very high figure tor it. In Washington one has only to pay a few cents. The department would do well to make a change in this respect and follow the example set by Washington. At this moment I have in-Mr. FISHER.
quiries from the United States for copies of patents, blit the figure asked-although not too high for the amount of writing to be done-is still so much higher than that charged in the United States that It deters people from getting it.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Willi regard to members getting bound copies, we only bind three or four for tlie use of the department. We keep tlie unbound copies, and when any one makes application for a description of a patent, we use those extra copies, and tire patent examiners must have them all the time on hand for their own reference. In the United Slates the conditions are very different from what they are here. There is such a large demand there for descriptions of patents that tlie American Patent Office find it economical to print a description of every patent issued, drawings and everything. Once these are printed, copies can be supplied at a nominal figure. But here there might not be a demand for a single copy of more that one-quarter of all the patents issued in a year, and if we went to the expense of printing them, we would have to ask for a much more considerable sum than we are doing. Even then, I fear tlie great bulk would never be asked fox-.


Andrew B. Ingram: Our present method discourages tlie sale of any of these copies. You have to pay $3 or $4 now to get a copy of a patent, whereas if the price were nominal there would be a great demand for these copies which does not exist now. And if you sold a few copies, that would meet the cost of (lie printing generally.
Mr, FISHER. Of course if any one wants a patent merely out of curiosity, intending to throw it away immediately after looking at it, lie will not care to pay $3 or $4. But if lie wanted it for any serious purpose, lie would consider that a very trifling expense. The officers of the department have carefully looked into the matter on several different occasions and they consider that tlie expense would be too great.


Andrew B. Ingram: I think the hon. the minister would find that if the price were considerably reduced, there would be demand for copies which would pay for the expense of printing. My hon. friend promised to tell us about the amount he was going to ask for for tlie collection of statistics, criminal statistics, census statistics and the others to be gathered by the Department of Agriculture.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I have not been able to go into further details, and this item of $18,200 is simply a repetition of last year's vote. The Census Bill has only just passed through the House, and I have not yet been able to make careful, detailed calculations of the expenses under it. But I will try to make these calculations and be ready to give the information my bon. friend asks when I propose, as I mean to do, the supple-

meat ary vote. That vote will probably be larger than this. This a mere repetition of the vote which we had last year, and I am not now prepared to give the details the bon. gentleman asked for.
Aid to agricultural societies, $7,000.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: This is required in order to give the usual aid to agricultural societies in the Northwest. I have frequently explained that, in the different provinces the provincial governments aid agricultural societies, but, there being no provincial government in the Territories, parliament has voted this sum year after year. In view of the fact that Bills for the creation of new provinces are before the House, I do not know whether this vote will be needed. But those Bills have not yet been passed, and we cannot know what the arrangement will be. I think it better to vote it this year and have it available for next fall, the time wdien the payments are made, as, 1 suppose that the provincial organization will not by that time be ready to take up this work; and certainly it will be a pity to have a cessation of the assistance to the agricultural societies.
.Mr. SPROULE. Will the minister divide it between the two provinces that are being formed?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: It is paid through the secretary of agriculture for the Northwest.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: How many agricultural societies are there in the Northwest ?
All'. FISHER. In 1901-5, there were thirty-one societies.


Andrew B. Ingram: With what membership ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I may explain that the secretary of agriculture for the Northwest supplies us each year with a list which indicates what amount should be sent to each society. Formerly it was paid on a per capita basis of membership, but lately the Department of Agriculture in the North-[DOT] west lias taken account of the money raised by the agricultural societies themselves, as well as the membership. AVe have not, for a number of years back, undertaken to decide what each society should have. That has been left to the Department of Agriculture of the Territories. They know that there is $7,000 coming, and they send us a statement and vouchers that the several societies have fulfilled the conditions, and we send a cheque to each society. I have here a list showing the membership of the societies in 1903, but not for 1904. The Regina society had a membership of 334, that being the largest society, and the smallest society had a membership of 75. They average about 150 to 200.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: They would receive an average of about $225 per society?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Yes, I believe the territorial government give them some allowance also.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Is the grant from tlio Dominion paid according to the amount the society raises? Formerly the rule in Ontario was that the province paid $2 for every $1 that each agricultural society raised.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: It is upon that that the territorial grant is based, and the secretary of agriculture of the Territories, when he divides the $7,000 here voted and gives us the items, takes that into consideration, I believe. In Quebec, I think it is the same as in Ontario, the assistance from the provinces varies according to the amount the society raises. That cannot be carried out in this case because the amount is fixed.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Would this vote be available if new provinces are established in the Northwest? Would the Auditor General be satisfied to pay out on such a vote as this?	.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I could not say positively as to that. This is simply an appropriation to aid agricultural societies.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: In the Northwest Territories?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: It does not say so. As a matter of fact it has been used only for the Northwest Territories. I think it is not likely that by the time this grant is needed, next fall, the provincial governments will be in a position to do this work, and I think it would be unfortunate if any lapse should occur and the societies should not get the usual aid.
Towards compiling historical data in regard to the Acadian families in Canada, $1,400.


Alfred Augustus Stockton: I would like the Alin-ister of Agriculture (Mr. Fisher) to state to the committee who is compiling this historical data, how long the work has been going on. and what progress has thus far been made ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: The gentleman who is doing this work is Air. Gaudet, who was recommended to me many years ago by the gentlemen in the House of Commons and Senate, on both sides of politics, who represented constituencies in which there were a large number of Acadian residents. He was accustomed to this work ; and at that time representations were made that probably the work -would be accomplished in a few years. The period was not definitely indicated, but it was expected that the work would go on with fair rapidity. I must say frankly that I have been disappointed in the progress of the work. Air. Gaudet has collected a great mass of information, partly by travelling about in the maritime provinces, partly by a careful examination of local, municipal and other records, which

mass of information he has been working at to try and complete the first volume of his record. But almost invariably when he has reached a certain point in this work he has found other information which has delayed the final compilation, if I may call it such, or the making up of the final record ; and the result is that to-day not a single volume has been published or is finished. I have asked the archivist, Mr. Doughty, who is an expert in this kind of work, to take up this matter and go into the records which Mr. Gaudet has collected, and see if he can find means by which this work can be more rapidly and more successfully conducted. I may say that Mr. Doughty has done this to a very considerable extent; he has not examined the whole of the records yet, but he has examined them to some extent, and he finds that there is a mass of information there which will be of great value. But that information has to be carefully gone over and systematized before it can be published. Mr. Gaudet is doing that now, and I believe that within a reasonable time, with the supervision and assistance of Mr. Doughty, he will be able to complete the first volume. I may say that the information he has found is far greater than could be published in one volume, but it is so mixed up, if I may use that term, that it is impossible for him to select and pick out a portion and bring it to the condition necessary for publication. I believe, however, that with the supervision and assistance Mr. Doughty can give him, within a reasonable time he will be able to eliminate from this mass of information such portions as can be published in one volume, and then go ahead with another portion and prepare it for another volume. The mass of information he has obtained is enormous,_ and quite sufficient for several volumes, but it needs careful going over to bring it to a condition where it will be ready for publication.
Fumigating stations, $4,000.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: These stations are at St. John, N.B., for the maritime provinces ; St. Johns, Que., for the province of Quebec ; Niagara Falls and Windsor, for the province of Ontario ; Winnipeg, for the province of Manitoba ; and Vancouver, for the province of British Columbia. Of course, there may be some slight importations at other ports, but these are the most important and convenient.
Exhibitions, $75,000.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: This vote is for the next fiscal year, and is to cover the completion of the exhibition at Liege, Belgium, which commences about the 1st of May next, and which we have accepted an invitation to take part in ; also it is intended to continue, to a certain extent, to take part in what is called trade exhibitions in England, the first of which we took part in during last fall, and which seems to have been a Mr. FISHER.
very successful investment of money. Roughly speaking, I think that $50,000 or $60,000 of this vote will be needed to complete the Liege exhibition, and the balance will be used for the trade exhibitions in Great Britain.


Mr. J. D. REID.: How much was spent on the St. Louis exhibition altogether ?
Mr. FISHER, Up to the present time $298,000 has been spent, and I think $10,000 or $12,000 more will be required to close up all the accounts, making a total of just about $310,000.


John Dowsley Reid: I suppose all the goods that were sent there will be sold and deducted from that amount ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: No. A few goods were sold there, but very few. In the first place, the customs regulations are such that it is actually cheaper to bring the goods back here than to sell them there. In the next place, a very large proportion of the goods that were sent there were not of a perishable nature, and are to be utilized for the Liege exhibition and others ; they are what I may call permanent exhibition stock. I was asked this morning, and I find that in the neighbourhood of $35,000 has been spent on what we may call permanent exhibition stock. This was bought for the St. Louis exhibition, and is still available for use in other exhibitions, and I would not think of selling it. It is a stock that is far too valuable to sell. I do not want to boast, but I will say that we had at St. Louis a mineral exhibit which has not been equalled by any exhibit ever shown at any exhibition in the world. That is talking pretty big, as we say, but at the same time I have the statement of disinterested parties, Americans, well able to judge, and that is their opinion. That exhibit contained a lot of minerals that were very valuable, but which were so exceptionally good as exhibits that I felt it was in our interest to purchase them rather than to have them owned by anybody else. We had one exhibit there for which we spent about $8,000, but which we could sell to-day for much more than that. I would not think of selling it, so long as we are going to exhibit at international exhibitions. There were other exhibits of timber, fur, &e., that cost considerable sums of money, but which attracted great attention, and which it would be very hard to replace. The money value of these is not so great as the expense of collection. We have had to send men all over the country to collect them, and the cost of collection was more than the cost of the exhibits. We own these now, and in the future will not have to go to the expense of collecting ; this will enable us to put up an excellent exhibit at Liege at less cost.


John Dowsley Reid: I had not the pleasure of being at the St. Louis exhibition, but I inquired from gentlemen who were there and

they congratulated us on our fine exhibit. With reference to this exhibit in Belgium, is it the intention of the government to have an exhibit somewhat similar to the Glasgow exhibit of is it to be larger or smaller ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: The cost will be more ; it is a larger exhibition than the Glasgow exhibition. We are going to have a Canadian building with all our exhibits in the one building, and this costs more than to have space in each of the buildings, but we have found by experience that it is far more effective. It saves a little in cost of administration but in effectiveness there is no comparison. At Liege we have to pay a rent for the land on which our building will be placed, half a dollar a foot, amounting in all to about $7,000. The contract price for the building is about $33,000. It is a large item and when I first got the estimate I shrank from it, but when I came to examine the alternative of obtaining space in the different buildings and the difference in the cost of administration and management, I came to the conclusion that even at that expense, if we were going to exhibit at all, it was best to undertake that expenditure. The estimate to-day is that the LiSge exhibition will cost from $120,000 to $125,000. Judging from my experience we will be able to keep within that. I estimated that our expenditure at St. Louis would be about $300,000 ; it is going to cost about $310,000, so I think I was fairly accurate in that estimate. The Glasgow exhibit cost about $70,000 or $75,000.
Mr. .1. D. REID. I agree that if you are having an exhibit of any kind which is for the purpose of advertising our country you should have a good one, because otherwise the money would be entirely thrown away. T understood that the expense of this was to be about $75,000.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: The $50,000 is to be expended after the 1st of July. All the expense of preparing the exhibits, sending them over, erecting the building and all ether expenses up to the 1st of July is paid out of this year's vote, the $200,000 we had this year.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: What amount has been spent on the Li6ge exhibition?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I am told that up to the present time, although I have not the exact figures, we have spent about $25,000 or $30,000. We have not yet sent a cheque for the buildings, but we will have to do so in a few weeks.


Mr.   J.@: I). REID. Is not half a dollar a foot rather a heavy rental ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: We have a permanent exhibition commissioner, now in the department, who has been in the department for about four years, Mr. William Hutchison. We will have to appoint another commissioner for the I.iege exhibition, because Mr. Hutchison does not understand French,


Mr.   J.@: I). REID. Will Mr. Hutchison be there too ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Oh, yes, he is the business commissioner, who will attend to the administration and will certainly have to be there. If he understood French it probably would not be necessary for me to appoint anybody else, but under the circumstances I would not like to put the business work of the exhibition under the management of an inexperienced person. I believe that the success of our exhibitions lately has been very largely due to the fact that we have at the head of that department, Mr. Hutchison, who for three or four years has had great experience in exhibition work.


John Dowsley Reid: Is he a permanent employee, and if so, at what salary ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: He is permanent at $3,000 a year.


John Dowsley Reid: And expenses ?
Mr. FISHER Yes, when they are incurred.


Mr. U. WILSON.: Will the minister give us a further explanation as to these exhibitions in England ; do I understand that he expects to make them permanent.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: My hon. friend misunderstood me if he thought I said they would be permanent. In England there are held annually what are known as trade exhibitions; at the Islington Agricultural Hall in London there are held five or six of these each year. Last fall there were three which came within a week of each other, each lasting ten days. One was the exhibition of the grocers and allied trades ; another, the bakers, and another a dairying exhibition. We had been for several years invited to take part in these exhibitions but for one reason or another we had been unable to do so. My officers and I were impressed with the value to Canadian trade of our taking part in these exhibitions which are attended by the retail and wholesale merchants from all over the country, who pick up new ideas in any of the trades in which they are specially interested. We took part in these three exhibitions last fall.


Uriah Wilson: What was the cost ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: That is not an unreasonable charge for space in exhibitions of this kind. Sometimes they charge as much as a dollar a foot.


John Dowsley Reid: Who is the commissioner ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: The cost amounted to about $5,000 each. There was another exhibition of a somewhat similar character called the Colonial Products exhibition held in 'St. Georges Hall. Liverpool, and we also took part in that at an expense of $5,000

or $0,000. The trade journals of the old country have universally congratulated us on having shown Canadian products at these exhibitions, and our experience is that our exhibits have caused a good deal of stir among the trades interested. X believe this work is of the utmost value to us in pushing our agriculture and food products in the English markets. So far as my opinion is concerned, I believe we should take part another year in some of these exhibitions, though not necessarily in the same ones as last year. An expenditure of $15,000 or $20,000 in such work is of the greatest value to Canadian trade in the English market.


Uriah Wilson: Did the $15,000 for the three exhibitions cover the cost of collecting the exhibits and forwarding them to England?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Yes.


Uriah Wilson: Did you have to get new exhibits for each exhibition?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: No. Part of the exhibits could be shown at the three exhibitions. At the grocers' exhibition we had canned goods, bacon, pork, and some butter and cheese ; at the dairy exhibition we had butter and cheese, eggs, and dressed poultry; at the baker's exhibit, we had butter and lard, some canned goods, flour, breakfast foods and articles of that kind. At these exhibitions, of late years we have set out the exhibits in an attractive and striking way which might perhaps be called a trick of the trade; something like what shop keepers do in what is called window dressing. At these three exhibitions in London we used these same decorations, although the exhibits themselves were changed. I am glad to say that I have some officers in my department who are experts at displaying our goods ; and when presented in this manner the exhibits attracted a good deal of attention.


Uriah Wilson: You will only have to renew the expense once a year ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: If the three exhibitions were held in the same hall, yes. But In the change from London to Liverpool, we had to renew the decorations. A good deal of this decoration is of grasses and grains which are very effective and very beautiful, and these we have to renew from time to time.


John Dowsley Reid: Who had charge of the London exhibit?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Mr. Hay and Mr. Brodie; the latter gentleman speaks French very well and he has gone to Lifge. Mr. Race showed great aptitude at St. Louis, and I got him to go to Liverpool; he is not a permanent officer.


John Dowsley Reid: Are these the only exhibitions we are to take part in during the coming year?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: 


Sydney Arthur Fisher: The Liege exhibition and these trade exhibitions in London are the only ones provided for in this vote, and the only ones we have so far considered.
For renewing and improving Canadian exhibits at Imperial Institute, London, and assisting in the maintenance thereof, $8,000.


Andrew B. Ingram: What changes have taken place in this office ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: 
Mr. KEMP.: What is this city office for ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: It is for two purposes. In the first place there has been a constant objection that the Imperial Institute was too far in the west end to be convenient for business men. In connection with The city office there is a show room, where I hope to have brief temporary exhibits. For instance, one week eve may have an exhibit of canned goods, another week bacon and pork, another week something else ; and each exhibit will be advertised beforehand to the trade specially interested in the particular line of products exhibited. The exhibits in the city will be exhibits of goods of a perishable nature, lasting only a few days or a week, whereas the exhibition at the Imperial Institute at South Kensington is one of a more permanent and general character. At the city office we might have in the course of the year fifteen or twenty different exhibits.


Albert Edward Kemp: The office will be run the whole year round ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Yes.


Albert Edward Kemp: Then you will require a permanent officer ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Yes.


Albert Edward Kemp: The amount is scarcely sufficient to carry such an enterprise in the city and do it effectively.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: We expect that Mr. Watson, with an ordinary clerk, will he able to alternate between the exhibit at South Kensingtou and the office in the city. When the exhibit is going on he will spend most of his time there and have his clerk at the South Kensington Institute.


Albert Edward Kemp: Does he give all his time to this work for the sum of $1,500 a year ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Yes, he does nothing else. He only got $1,200 for a long time.


Albert Edward Kemp: Can you get a good officer for that price ?
. Mr. FISHER. I am surprised that Mr. Watson is contented, but he is an efficient officer. He has been there a long time, and is well up in Canadian products and affairs, and a most suitable man for the purpose.


Albert Edward Kemp: He is a very line man.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I cannot see why he is willing to go on at the low price, but he is.


Albert Edward Kemp: He is a very efficient gentleman, and I am surprised at the smallness of his salary. He must have some private income.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I know nothing about that.


Francis Ramsey Lalor: What inducements are held out to manufacturers to exhibit ? Have they to pay their own freight, or what means should they take to have their goods exhibited ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I have not made out any special rules regarding this exhibition. In preparing exhibits, if the manufacturers will supply the goods, we have always been in the habit of sending them forward at our expense and looking after them. I suppose we will have to do that in connection with the Imperial Institute exhibit.


Andrew B. Ingram: The hon. gentleman is referring to exhibitions, not to the Imperial Institute.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: We will do the same in that case.


Andrew B. Ingram: I think the hon. gentleman has been a negligent sinner once more. He has not carried out what he promised last session and the session before that, and has not much of an excuse to offer.
Mr. FISHER, I have not got on as fast as I would like.


Mr. BLAIN.: In what condition is the Canadian exhibit in the Imperial Institute at the present time, and how is it constituted ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I do not know if I could tell the hon. gentleman.


Albert Edward Kemp: The hon. gentleman is ashamed of it.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I do not want to say much about it.


Mr. BARR.: Is it increasing or decreasing ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: It is very much in statu quo at present, but before next July, I hope to be able to increase it very considerably.


Albert Edward Kemp: It is not a credit to the country, that exhibition in the Imperial Institute.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What is the use of spending $8,000 if we make no efforts to improve it ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: We did not spend it last year at all, but I hope that by the end of this year we will be able to make the exhibit fairly creditable. I may not succeed in doing all I would like before the 1st July, but will make a decided effort.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What do you propose doing ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I propose to collect exhibits this year as much as I can with the money at my disposal, and send them over and set them up. Once the installation at Li^ge is completed. I hope to turn some of the staff back into London to do the installation there. The Liege exhibition must be installed by the 1st May, and I will have May and June to work in the Imperial Institute at London.
Steamer service at Grosse Isle, $55,000.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: The amount of the contract is $83,000 for the vessel, and it will take the vote of last year of $30,000 and this year's $55,000 to pay for it. When I asked for $30,000 last year, I did not know what the contract would come to. We invited tenders from a considerable number of builders, and eventually awarded the contract to the lowest Canadian tenderer. There were tenders from abroad at a lower price, but we thought it only fair to give a chance to Canadian builders. Bertram & Company, of Toronto, are the contractors.


John Barr: When will the contract be finished ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: The vessel is to be delivered in September. There were other tenders that ran up to $110,000, and ffie tender we accepted was the lowest Canadian tender. It will be an iron steamer 120 feet long and otherwise in proportion.

1S40


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I presume you expect to spend this $30,000 voted last year before the 30th June next, and the balance Is to pay for the rest of the contract ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Yes.


John Dowsley Reid: $80,000 seems a high figure for a vessel 120 feet long.
v Mr. FISHER. We asked for tenders from some four or five builders in Canada and two in Scotland. The offers from Scotland were lower, but we thought it would be fair to add 25 per cent to them to account for the duty which the Canadian builders said they had to pay on the material. When we did that, the Scotch tenders came higher than $83,000. The 25 per cent is an arbitrary figure, but it is about what the average duty would be, and I thought it best to give the contract to a Canadian builder on reasonable terms.


John Dowsley Reid: I understand that, of late, they have been building large steel steamers in Toronto for prices quite as low as are demanded in the old country. Had the minister made inquiries he would have learned that a large number of lake vessels have been built in Toronto. Therefore, if he has added 25 per cent, he has simply given a profit of 25 per cent or $20,000 to the builders over and above what the vessel could have been built for if the contract had been by tender.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: It was by tender, and none of the tenders were opened until all were in. There was one Scotch tender for $67,000, another for $73,000 ? The Bertram tender was for $83,000 and the Collingwood Ship-building Company and the Poisons each $110,000.


John Dowsley Reid: On the same specifications?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: The same in every way.


John Dowsley Reid: Is it understood that there are to be no extras?


Mr FISHER.: There would have to be a change in the specifications to have extras. The specifications were prepared by the Department of Marine and Fisheries just as they prepare them for themselves when they have to order a boat. Of course, the officers of my department explained the work to be done by the boat and what she would need.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The minister has taken a novel way of introducing the protection principle when he says that he added 25 per cent to the Scotch tender. It seems a strange way to overcome a protective duty in the interest of Canadians. I am not objecting to it but I think it is a very bad principle to introduce.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I think it is the principle that lias been acted upon by the government in a great many instances.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: 


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I do not remember having heard it explained or defended in the House before.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: When the matter was discussed, I was informed that the Public Works Department act on this principle.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: In connection with what work?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I cannot say; I was simply told they acted on the principle of adding a percentage to the tender of the transAtlantic contractor, so as to make it as fair as possible for our own contractor.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I have heard it explained that it cost something to bring a vessel across the water, and that must be taken into the calculation in comparing tenders. But I cannot remember having ever heard of the addition of a percentage to the tender from outside of Canada in order to be fair to our contractors.


John Dowsley Reid: The Minister of Agriculture does not appear to be as economical as the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Pr&fontaine). I think that when that lion, gentleman wants a steamer he purchases it, on the other side of the water. Is it not true that the government purchased a steamer last year, ordering it from the other side of the Atlantic on the ground that it could lie built there at a less price than here?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I think the reason was that they could not get it delivered here in time. I might say that these tenders from the other side of the water were for a vessel delivered at Quebec.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: That is why I made the inquiry-because I understood that the cost of delivering the vessel on this side was the only item in the calculation in considering Canadian tenders. Now, it is put on the ground of protection. This is an illustration that devised many means to introduce the element of protection, though they would not admit the principle openly. They have accomplished it in a round-about way in many instances, of which this is one.


John Dowsley Reid: Has the minister named the vessel? I think we should decide on a name. I think we ought to call her the ' Minnie M.'


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I do not know that name?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What speed will the vessel have ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: The specifications require 12 knots.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The vessel is for quarantine purposes. Will she carry passengers?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: We have constantly to send numbers of .people from the quarantine station at Grosse Isle to Quebec-people

whose time of quarantine has expired- when there is no vessel to carry them. The vessel has to carry also a disinfecting apparatus, so that if a ship comes that requires disinfecting that can be done.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Has the department any different method for disinfecting ships from that which was in use some years ago 1


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I do not know of any change within the last seven years. This vessel will have what they call the sulphur blast furnace.
Sieamer for service at William Head, $20,000.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I have not been able to make a contract for that ship yet. Specifications are now being drawn up by the Department of Marine and Fisheries I hope to get the ship built on the Pacific coast.


John Barr: What is the object of this vessel ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: This vessel belongs to the quarantine station 'at Victoria. We have to have a small steamer there to run out to the ships as they come in, and take off passengers if necessary.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Have you any reason to hope that you will be able to get this built in British Columbia ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Yes.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Specifications were prepared last year, what is the cause of the delay ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Specifications were prepared, but they were on too extensive a scale, too large a ship altogether, and I insisted upon having specifications for a smaller vessel.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What are you doing the service with now ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: An old boat which has been under constant repair, costing us very heavily every year, and which is not fit for the service. Sometimes I almost wish that she might be lost, she is absolutely unfit for service.
Salaries and contingencies of organized districts. and public health in other districts, $150,000.


Mr. HERRON.: I would like to ask the .minister for some information regarding some unsettled claims in the town of Pin-cher Creek where 1 live. Three or four years ago there was a small pox epidemic in the Northwest Territories, and it broke out in that town. The Northwest government took steps to prevent the spread of the disease, they appointed health officers and a committee to look after the matter. They quarantined several houses in the town, and held people occupying them under quaran-t ne. When the time came to settle, the Northwest government had not sufficient funds to meet all the claims, because there
\\ ere other cases in other towns. I understand that an agreement was arrived at between the Dominion government and the government of the Northwest Territories, and the cases were handed over to the Department of Agriculture. In some of the towns in my district the claims were settled in their entirety, but for some reason of which I am not aware, in other places they were not satisfied. There are two towns in the district which I represent, where not < ver twenty-five or thirty per cent of all the claims have been settled, though they were certified to by the health officer, or the health committee appointed by the Northwest government, and sworn statements were submitted. I would like to ask the minister if he can tell me why these claims have not been paid ? I think they should be paid, it is in the interest of the country that they should be paid.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I may say to my hon. friend that I do not quite understand the situation as he has described it. I was not aware that the Northwest government had any health officers there apart from those we appoint and pay. But the hon. gentleman seems to indicate some local or other health officers. As a matter of fact, we had to deal with the small-pox epidemic in the Northwest, and we did so through Dr. Patterson, who was appointed by us to superintend this work in the Territories. Everything the hon. gentleman describes came before Dr. Patterson, and he made reports upon it to the department, passed the various claims and so forth, and wherever he passed claims we paid them. I do not remember at the moment any cases which were not settled, though in some cases we did not pay the full amount claimed, but in those cases the matter was amicably adjusted. I am not aware that there were any outstanding claims. If my hon. friend would give the names of the places and the individuals whose claims remain unsettled, I will be glad to look into them, if they are certified and approved by the officer in charge.


John Herron: The Dr. Patterson to whom the minister refers did make a visit to this town in order to settle these claims. He came there and spoke to one or two men of the town, I do not think there were three men who knew of his business in the town, although there were over twenty interested in these claims. When lie came at noon he said lie would be there the whole afternoon, and he went away in an hour or two, and never made any investigation of the claims, good, bad or indifferent. I was there, and am able to make this statement. He put his own interpretation upon our claims, and they have not been settled to this day. I iiope the minister will look into this matter and set it right. I can give all the details, the names of the applicants, and everything necessary to justify my statement. I am now speaking of Pinclier Creek, but I

1S44
believe there were similar claims unpaid at Fort Macleod. This occurred four years ago last February. The disease broke out in Pinc-her Creek about the same time. I know of one instance where the officers took possession of a vacant house, placed patients in same, also furniture and bedding, and it all remains in that house up to this time. The board of health recommended that the building should be burned down, but no action has yet been taken.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I will look into the matter and see what has been done.


Mr. W. J. ROCHE.: The hon. gentleman has a number of officers to guard the frontier in Manitoba from contagious diseases. Has the minister appointed any new officers during the past year? He had Dr. Riddell at Crystal City, Dr. Thorburn at Deloraine, and Dr. White from some other place down there.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: No, we have taken them all off. Small-pox seems to have practically disappeared from the United States and we have felt justified in withdrawing these officers.


William James Roche: Small-pox is the only disease that you guard against?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Yes.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: How many officers have you appointed for the unorganized districts and what are their salaries?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Those along the frontier are appointed from month to month and are paid $100 a month except a few in the west where the expenses are higher and where they are paid $125 a month, as they are not resident at the places at which they are stationed.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: If you have dispensed with the services of so many medical men and do not intend to employ them again, except an emergency arises, why do you want this large vote?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I do not now expect to need all that, but at the time these estimates were made up, two or three months ago, we could not be very sure. We may be able to get on with $20,000 or $25,000 less and I would be willing to reduce the vote by $20,-
000.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: How much did you spend last year ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: The Auditor General's Report will show what we spent last year; I am speaking now of the current year. I do not think we will spend $150,000 this present year, because the necessity for watching the frontier has ceased during this current fiscal year, and if nothing occurs to require the reappointment of these men during the next four or five years we will not spend the $150,000.


John Herron: 


John Dowsley Reid: The Auditor General's Report shows that last year $106,216 was spent, $73,056.60 for the organized districts and $33,159.40 for the unorganized districts, for public health generally. The minister states that he will not require $20,000 of last year's expenditure this year, so that about $83,000 should cover the expenditure for this year.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Of course the organized districts are all we can surely count on. The other work is intermittent in its character, but we never know exactly what we will be called upon to spend.


John Dowsley Reid: Last year $73,000 was for the organized districts and $33,000 for the unorganized districts. The hon. minister does not mean to say that that will be increased at all.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: There must be some mistake there, because last year I think we spent nearly $150,000; otherwise I would not have asked for the $150,000.


John Dowsley Reid: There must be some other portion of the Auditor General's Report which my hon. friend has not seen.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Some years ago, I asked for $80,000 for the organized districts alone, but I was forced to take a supplementary-estimate and I think it came to $100,000 altogether. That has been the expenditure generally.


John Dowsley Reid: You should not take a larger vote than is required for this purpose, because there is great temptation to use the money for some other purpose. The Auditor General has complained in respect to matters of this kind.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I do not want the temptation of getting more money than I actually need.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Then why do you not act on that principle?


John Dowsley Reid: The minister says that this year he does not want within $20,000 of wliat he expended last year. He spent $106,000 last year and $20,000 less would be $86,000. If he gets $100,000 it ought to cover all reqtiirements.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: In the year 1902-3, we expended on the organized districts alone $99,000, so that there appears to be something omitted in the Auditor General's Report. I am perfectly willing to let the item stand until I get further information, but if the hon. gentlemen wish to pass the vote I think it might be reduced to $130,000.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: You must have had some memorandum to present to Council on which to base your request for this vote.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I have not that memorandum with me at present.



MARCH 1, 1905 1S46

Andrew B. Ingram: The expenditure last year according to the Auditor General's Report was $217,000, and if you deduct the $99,000 for cattle quarantine it leaves a balance of $118,000 expended in this way.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: The estimate for 1905-G shows $105,000 for organized quarantine work; $15,000 for frontier work, and $10,000 for Northwest Territories, or $130,000 in all.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The minister had better let the item stand until we get the information.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Very well.
Item allowed to stand.
Traeadie Lazaretto, $6,000.
Mr, SPROULE. Why is this vote increased $500?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: The physician there is experimenting on a new treatment and he wishes to continue his experiments more extensively. That accounts for the larger part of the increase, and then there are some little travelling expenses which the doctor has to incur in examining into reported cases of leprosy.


John Dowsley Reid: Are the lepers increasing?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: It varies a little. There are seventeen now and two years ago there were twenty-one.
Public Works Health Act, $6,000.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: The statute passed some years ago requires that certain facilities in the matter of hospital accommodation and so on, shall be provided by contractors on public works. We have a gentleman who visits these works and sees that this law is properly carried out.
Mr. .1. D. REID. I see that last year the expenditure under this head was only $3,500.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I asked for the vote of $6,000 last year in anticip'ation of the construction of the Transcontinental Railway. So far we have only expended about $3,000, but before the end of the current fiscal year we may have to expend more. So far, I am very pleased to say, there has been no unusual occurrence. The ordinary routine inspection has been sufficient. We have had very little in the way of complaint, and our inspector has been able, by ordinary travelling, to overlook the work and make satisfactory reports. As an instance of what might occur at any time, a report came to the department that there was an epidemic of a peculiar disease on a certain work. The inspector immediately went off to inquire into it, and returned within a week with the statement that there was no foundation for the report. When a report of that kind comes to the department, however, we look into it at once.
Winnipeg and St. Boniface hospitals, $4,000.


William James Roche: How are the grants to these hospitals made ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: The vote is divided between them according to the number of patients, at the rate of so much per day.


Uriah Wilson: It was stated in this House a year or two ago that the reason we had to give so much to hospitals in that part of the country was that a large number of immigrants were taken to them, and it would be unfair to throw the whole burden upon the people there. Will the minister state how many are in the hospitals, and what proportion are immigrants ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I have no report of the number there at present, and I do not think that would influence the grant. It is the number of admissions of newly arrived people during the year that regulates the amount we send to each hospital.
Some resolutions reported.
Sir WILLIAM MULOCK moved the adjournment of the House.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Might I ask what work will be taken up to-morrow ?


William Mulock: The Minister of Agriculture will proceed with the third reading of the Seeds Bill.


John Barr: Will that take the whole day ?


William Mulock: It is possible, judging by the past. If that be passed, the Minister of Marine and Fisheries, if he is ready, will proceed with his Seamen's Bill, and ill-. Fitzpatrick may proceed with his Bill to amend the Franchise Act. If we go into supply, the Minister of Railways and Canals will proceed with his estimates, and the Minister of Agriculture may take up the items he has left unfinished to-day.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House adjourned at 10.20 p.rn.
[Stage Direction]
Wednesday, March 1, 1905.