1905-05-29

['My hon. friend will see it is rather important to know if it debars us from participating in the great increase in tlie commerce of Japan. Perhaps the minister may bring down a little more information. the terms of the treaty or an abstract of it, showing in what way we would have been affected.']
Mr. MORIN asked :: 
Rt.   H@: 
[u"The post office at St. Abdon was opened by >tlie Postmaster General on recommendations which he considered sufficient to induce him to do so.\nDISMISSAL OF POLICEMAN CASTONGUAY. Mr. BOYER-'by Mr. O. E. Talbot-asked :\n1.\tOn what date was Alexander B. Castonguay dismissed from the federal police ?\n2.\tFor what cause ?\n3.\tOn whose report ?\n4.\tDid this report incriminate other policeman ?\t.\t, \u201e\n5.\tHave these also been dismissed ?"]
Mr. SAM. HUGHES.: Some time ago I asked a question as to whether this man had been employed in the Marine and Fisheries Department. The answer of the minister was that he was not so employed. I have data to the effect that lie had been employed up to the date oil which my question was placed on the paper, and his services were then dispensed with. If such was the case, the answer of the minister was equivocal and misleading. I desire the First Minister to look into that.



Mr. BENNETT asked :: 1.	Have any payments been made to the Col-iingwood Dry Dock Company, by way of bounty or assistance, by the federal government ?
2.	If so, what are the amounts and dates of payments ?


Hon. W. S. FIELDING (Minister of Finance) :: 1.	No.
2.	Answered by No. 1.


BRACEBRIDGE DRY DOCK.
Mr.   WM@: WRIGHT-by Mr. Bennett-asked :
1.	Who is the local superintendent of the government dock recently constructed, or being constructed, at Bracehridge, Ontario, and -where does he reside ?
2.	How much per diem was he paid ? _
3 How much was he paid for such services to date, and will he he paid any further amount for such work ?
4. Upon whose recommendation was he appointed ?


Hon. W. S. FIELDING (Minister of Finance) :: 1.	P. L. Olairmont. The address known to the department is Bracehridge, Ontario. We have no other address.
2.	$3 per day.
3.	(a) S44S.6S ;	(b) The services ot a
clerk of works will be required until tbe contract is completed.
4.	Mr. Olairmont was appointed by Mr. Henry A. Gray, resident engineer, after consulting with well informed people in the vicinity.


COLDINGWOOD GOVERNMENT DOCK.
Hon. W. S. FIELDING (Minister of Finance).: If the House will permit me, I will answer a question which was put to me the other day during the discussion with respect to the construction of a dock at Colling-wood. I was asked about the return of the cheque of 'Mr. Battle, and I stated that while I was positive in regard to Mr. Conroy's cheque, I desired to make further inquiry. I find that after the tender of Mr. Conroy was accepted and the contract awarded to him, all the other cheques were returned. The cheque of Mr. Conroy is still held m the department.


JAPANESE DISCRIMINATION AGAINST CANADIAN GOODS.
[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day being called.
Mr SAMUEL BARKER (Hamilton).: Before the Orders of the Day are called, I desire to call the attention of the government to a letter which appears in the Yarmouth [DOT] Telegram ' of Friday last. It may have been already brought to the attention of the proper department, but it seems to me to be a matter of very great importance, and therefore I now call attention to it. it is copied from ' Industrial Canada .
Mr 0 T. Grantham, manager of the Imperial Cotton Company, Hamilton, sends us the following "etter from their New York selling agents, which may be found of interest as illustrating the difficulties which Canadian manufacturers are meeting with in endeavouring to market their goods in Japan :
New York, April 22, 1905.
Dear Sir,-I regret having to report that in spite of continued efforts, we have found it lm-

possible to sell any of the Canadian goods for export to Japan. During the past six or eight months we hare sold very large blocks of goods manufactured in the United States for export to that market, but, in spite of our best efforts, and of offers, of price concessions, we have not been able to ship a yard of your goods to Japan.
Knowing that your goods were equal in every respect to the American made duck, we were forced to look for some other reasons for the discrimination against the Canadian goods. We found, in the first place, that there was a preferential of five per cent, in favour of the duty on American duck. In order to offset that, we offered the Canadian goods at five per cent less than the American goods, so that they might go in through the customs on the same basis. Even at this price concession, we were unable to effect any sales, in spite of the fact that the Japanese were most desirous of obtaining goods promptly, and were thoroughly scouring the American markets for goods which could be delivered at au early date. We then found out that the reason we could not effect sales was not so much on account of the prices of goods as because there was a sentimental prejudice in Japanese official circles against Canadian-made goods. It seems that the Japanese feel that they were discriminated against by the Canadian government, and that the Canadian government was not willing, at some time in the past, to make the same arrangements with Japan as with the United States and England.
I believe that it is more on account of this prejudice than for any other reason, that we cannot effect the sale of your goods in this mar-+ *7 an<^ ^ ^ *s *n an5r way possible for you to bring about more friendly relations between your government and the Japanese officials, we believe that it will materially help the trade of the Dominion.
Yours very truly,
J. SPENiCER TURNER COMPANY.
H. H. Lehman, secretary and treasurer.
This is a very important matter for the consideration of the government if it has not already been dealt with. I shall send the letter over to the hon. minister.


William Stevens Fielding: The point to which my hon. friend refers has already been brought to the notice of the government. It arises out of this condition :	The imperial government made a
treaty with Japan some years ago under which certain privileges were granted and we had the opportunity of joining in that treaty. All things considered it was felt that if wrn should adhere to that treaty Canada's freedom of action in other matters would he embarrassed, and it was not deemed wise in the interest of Canada to assent to that treaty so that it might be applied to Canada. The consequence is that Canadian (products do not get the preference which British products would under that treaty and which are granted to the products of some other countries. In order to get the ad' mitage to which my hon. friend refers wre ts oulc. have been obliged to give lip some degree of that freedom which Canada has desired to have in regard to its own legislative action. I am speaking from recollec-


Mr. BARKER.: tion of what occurred some years ago but that is substantially the condition. We declined to join in this British treaty and therefore we lost some advantages which might have been derived if we had accepted that treaty.


Mr. FOSTER.: Does my hon. friend recollect what was the chief factor in causing this action of the government, what possibilities they would Lave let themselves in for bad they accepted the treaty and at about what time this occurred ?


William Stevens Fielding: Some years ago. It relates jtft the operation of. the favoured nation clause, and also my recollection is that it affected our freedom of action on the labour question.


George Eulas Foster: My hon. friend will see it is rather important to know if it debars us from participating in the great increase in tlie commerce of Japan. Perhaps the minister may bring down a little more information. the terms of the treaty or an abstract of it, showing in what way we would have been affected.



SUPPLY-PURCHASE OF MILITIA CAMP AT KENTV1LLE, N.S.

['Yes, I think so.']
Hon.  W. S.@: FIELDING (Minister of Finance) moved that the House go into Committee of Supply .


Samuel Hughes: Some four or five weeks ago I notified the Minister of Militia that I purposed bringing up during the course of the session the purchase of a site for a militia camp at Kentvilie, N.S., and he then explained that he was familiar with all the details of the case and that it could he explained. In justice to the Minister of Militia the House and the country I think it is proper that we should have an explanation, the best possible he can give. The statement as furnished to me contains the following data :	It shows that the government expropriated about 640 acres of land for the purposes of a camp ground, I believe, at or near the village of Kentvilie, N.S. That land was previously owned by a number of people, but before the expropriation proceedings it was purchased by Messrs. II. P. Dodge, and H. H. Wickwire, members of the local legislature of the province of Nova Scotia, staunch Liberals and members of King's county. I have here a statement which shows how a number of these lands were purchased, contained in a newspaper published in the locality, and I may as well show the manner in which these lands were acquired. For instance one was purchased from John Redden, et al trustees. &c.. by 'Milliard II. Fulton, barrister. Halifax, Race Track, Kentvilie 26 acres, May 30, 1002, for $1,250. Then there was a transference of the same property from W. H. Fulton and his wife to H. H. Wickwire, barrister,

Iventville, August 1st for the same consideration. He was content with a small fee.


George Eulas Foster: He did not get any profit.


Samuel Hughes: Then Stephen Belcher, sheriff King's county to Branton H. Dodge, Kentville, merchant; land in pine woods, 60 acres, July 21, 1902, $110. That is a little over $2 an acre. Then the Robinson heirs sold to the same purchaser 20S acres for $218.40, a little over $1 an acre. James Fanning and wife, same purchaser, land in Cornwallis, 31 acres $400, some $131 an acre. Then the rector and wardens. Parish St. John, same purchaser Glebe lands, pine woods, 25 acres $100, $4 an acre.


Mr. BLACK.: What authority is it that the hou. gentleman is quoting from ?


Samuel Hughes: If the hon. gentleman will preserve his soul in patience I will give the statements. It is for him to prove that they are wrong. These are from records of the courts, and if the hon. gentleman will preserve his soul in patience


Judson Burpee Black: What is the authority ?


Samuel Hughes: I am assuming the authority for these statements here and it is for the hon. gentleman to show that they are incorrect.


Judson Burpee Black: I think I am within my rights in asking what the authority is.


Samuel Hughes: Samuel Chipman and wife


Judson Burpee Black: Am I right or wrong ?


Mr.   SAM@: HUGHES-Boston, same purchaser, land and pine woods one acre, $20.


Judson Burpee Black: I am rising to a point of order. I demand the authority from which the hon. gentleman is reading. I want to know the name of the paper ?


Samuel Hughes: They were not purchased from Doukliobors.


Mr. SPEAKER.: I do not think the hon. member is within his rights in insisting on the authority.


Samuel Hughes: I may say that they were not purchased from Doukhobors or Galicians. The St. John's church I presume is an English church and consequently the land would be worth only one-twentieth as much as if purchased from some other concern, from a Doukhobor. Walter B. Reid, farmer, same purchaser, lot 3 acres, the price is left blank here. The heirs of Hanley Chipman, same purchaser lot in pine woods, 10 acres, $20, $2 an acre. Geo. Carter, farmer, same purchaser, lot in pine woods, 1 acre, $120. Wilson Young and wife, same purchaser, lot in pine woods, 12 acres, $120. H. H. Wickwire, same purchaser. race track Kentville, 26 acres, August 26, 1903, $3,000. That is the same track that
was sold previously for $1,250. That is the difference in the price. These 377 acres were purchased for $2,358.40, $6.26 an acre, including the value of the buildings. All this was transferred to Messrs. Wickwire and Dodge, M.P.Ps., staunch supporters of the Liberal government of Nova Scotia, and I presume of the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Militia in the province of Nova Scotia. The later conveyance I have no report upon, but I presume the Minister of Militia will be able to furnish that. The statement I have is that this propery is largely an expanse of sand covered with a few pine trees and scrub and that it has always been con sidered of little value. Let me say that this would not in any way detract from its value as a drill ground. On the contrary I should say that the fact that it is a sandy soil would be a great advantage from the view point of drill purposes, although not from the view point of agricultural land. After Messrs. Dodge and Wickwire had acquired this, Mr. Crawley, of Wolfville, a Liberal, was appointed arbitrator and Mr. Mcllreith, of Halifax, another Liberal, acted for the government and W. E. Roscoe, of Kentville, for the local members. I am informed that Mr. Roscoe is a gentleman with a record in the Liberal party. He is the confidential representative of some of the leading Liberal ministers and others in the province of Nova Scotia, and I am informed he has of necessity to he called in in very many of these delicate technical matters requiring adjudication in this section of the country. The value which these witnesses put on the property ranged between $50 and $70 per acre which you will see is a very great price considering what Messrs. Dodge and Wickwire paid for the same property a short time previously, namely $6.20 per acre including a number of buildings. The final decision as to how much the government shall pay for this camp ground is in the hands of Judge Burbidge, and it is understood that it will not be had for some time to come.


Mr. BENNETT.: Who appealed to Judge Burbidge ?


Samuel Hughes: I do not know. The hon. minister will [be able to tell us. I am merely bringing this up in order to have from him a full explanation. According to the Auditor General's Report, nearly $25,000 have been expended on the rifle ranges on this camp ground.


An hon. MEMBER.: What was paid for the land ?


Samuel Hughes: The arbitrators allowed $38,400 for the land and a large area had been purchased for a comparatively trifling sum by Wickwire & Dodge. The arbitrators allowed $38,400 for 641 acres.


Mr. BOYCE.: What was the total amount paid by Dodge & Wickwire ?

'Mr. SAJI. HUGHES. I have the total only for the 377 acres and for that they paid $2,358. This amount of $25,000 expended on the rifle ranges is from $6,000 to $7,000 above the contract price. I find also that the stop-block was constructed of hemlock timber instead of cedar which the contract called for. Perhaps the minister will make a note of that point. I have here a short extract from the speech of the hon. minister delivered in the House. In that speech he said :
With regard to the rural districts and the smaller towns, where there is only, say, one unit, my idea is that we should construct a substantial building which can be headquarters, armoury and storehouse, and with a room sufficiently large tor a lecture room, where the officers who take an interest in military matters can bring their men in the evening, and, by means of blackboards and so on, illustrate military affairs and give necessary instructions. My plan will include every village of any importance in the Dominion of Canada.
That is almost on a par with the promise of the right hon. the First Minister, after he got into the little Dundonald trouble with the Minister of Agriculture last year, when he proposed to arm every one, old and young, with one of the new Koss breech loading rifles. I should like to see a few scattered throughout the province of Ontario. The minister continued :
We have reverted to the old system of keeping arms at company headquarters. I may ice permitted to remark that in my own county we have a regiment of infantry of eight companies, and two squadrons of cavalry, yet we have only an old wooden drill hall In the town of Kentville, which was built some years ago. There has not been $1,000 expended on a building to house the militia in my county during the nine years I have been a minister. I tell my people that they must be patient. The time will come, I hope, when they will all be housed, and I will ask some of my hon. friends to emulate my example and be patient.
That does not agree with the Auditor General's Report. In the Auditor General's Report of 1901, I And the following :
J. 0. Reeves, fitting up armoury, per j
contract	$1,325
Less drawback	 132
1,193
I presume that drawback was the 10 per cent. As a rule, I understand, the rake off is 20 per cent.
Rockwell, C. F., superintending work at armoury to June 29th, 1991, 50 days at $2.50, $125.
In the Auditor General's Report for 1904, Vol. 2, Q-115, I find the following :
Rifle ranges, lands for military purposes, Kentville, Nova Scotia, $24,709.73.
C. L. Dodge, inspector, 131 days at $2.50..$327 50
Wm. Rand, surveys and expenses	 448 13
A. B. Ward, construction of field stages.. 785 00
R. T. Mcllreith, legal services	591 88


Arthur Cyril Boyce: I wonder is this the gentleman who was connected with the purchase of these lands, or was he one of the gentlemen who sold some land ? I think we had his name before in connection with the matter.
Account witness fees, King vs. Dodge..$ 200 00
Paid for labour	 865	69


John J.: Lyons and James Whyte, rifle
butts, ranges and sheds	
20,463	55Sundry expenses	
1,027	98Total	,	
24,709' 73
Then in 1904 I find by the Auditor General's Report, Q-33, there was paid :
C. L. Dodge, supplies to Aldershot camp drill, $2,892.92.
That of course, would be legitimate expenditure, but it looks as though these contracts were kept within the hands of these professional gentlemen in connection with the Liberal party in that province for political purposes. If the hon. minister has any satisfactory explanation to give, I am sure he will be glad of an opportunity to make it. If he has none, it is the duty of this House to have the facts probed to the very bottom. This system is one which seems to have taken hold, not only of the other departments, but even the Militia Department. It is trifling with the proper method of awarding contracts, and, the making of these deals should be stopped and the people be given full value for their money. I do not know what explanation the minister can give for paying $50 to $60 an acre for land, the average price of which was only $6.20 per acre.


Hon.  W. S.@: 
Samuel Hughes: No, no.


William Humphrey Bennett: 1 asked who appealed to Judge Burbidge.


Sir FREDERICK BORDEN.: I have just given the answer. The land was expropriated. By that fact it became the duty of Judge Burbidge to ascertain, from the best information available, the value of the land and the price the Crown should pay.


William Humphrey Bennett: I heard the hon. gentleman (Mr. Sam. Hughes) make the statement that three gentlemen had acted as arbitrators


George Eulas Foster: Mr. Crawley acted as arbitrator, I understand.


Frederick William Borden: I did not say that.


William Humphrey Bennett: I heard the statement made to which I refer, and so I asked who had appealed to Judge Burbidge?


Frederick William Borden: No, that is not the position. Judge Burbidge, as is the custom of the court in certain cases-the general custom if I understand aright-named a proper officer to take evidence on the point. In this particular case Judge Burbidge named Mr. Crawley, a very respectable barrister of the province of Nova Scotia.


Mr. R. L. BORDEN.: I do not know what took place in the present instance. But, as I understand the practice, sometimes the judge takes the evidence himself. Some, times he refers the question of value to a referee who has authority not only to take evidence, but to make a finding, while in other cases he entrusts the ease to a referee merely for the purpose of taking evidence, the finding being reserved for the judge himself. I do not know in which category this was.


Frederick William Borden: It was in the last category.


Robert Laird Borden: I have seen references to the matter in the newspapers, and my recollection is that the matter was referred to Mr. Crawley for the purpose of taking the evidence and reporting a value to the court. I understand also that he had reported the value and that the Crown had appealed.


Frederick William Borden: I am not familiar with these technical points. But I know this-that it remains for the judge to give his final adjudication as to the value of the land.


Samuel Hughes: Would the minister have any objection to say what connection Messrs. Crawley, of Wolfeville, Mr. Mcllreith, of Halifax, and Mr. Moscoe, of Kentville, had with this matter?


Frederick William Borden: As I understand it, Mr. Mcllreith is the agent of the Department of Justice in Nova Scotia ; Mr. Crawley was appointed the referee


George Eulas Foster: By the judge?


Frederick William Borden: Yes, directly by the court-and Mr. Itoscoe, I have heard, although-I have had nothing to do with him in this particular matter, was the lawyer employed by the owmers of the land.


George Eulas Foster: Would the minister state what were the first steps taken in order to get hold of this land and when they were taken ?


Frederick William Borden: The first steps as I remember were taken about two or three years ago by the Militia Department expropriating this property for a camp ground for the province of Nova Scotia.


Mr. STOCKTON.: Will the minister allow me to asl); a question? If the government expropriated, did the department at once take proceedings under the Exchequer Court Act to ascertain the amount to be paid?


Frederick William Borden: Immediately.


Alfred Augustus Stockton: When was that done?


Frederick William Borden: I do not know the exact date, but I think it was between one and two years ago. I think it was during the camp a year ago last summer.


Samuel Hughes: The hon. minister stated that one of these gentlemen represented the owners. I presume he referred to Messrs. Dodge and Wickwire, the liberal members of provincial parliament for the county.


Frederick William Borden: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Sam. Hughes) insists very much upon mixing up these Liberal members of provincial parliament with the matter. I do not see much in that.
Mr, SAM. HUGHES. Who were the owners-that is all I want to know?


Frederick William Borden: I stated that I did not know who the owners were and I cannot make it any more emphatic than I have made it already. This property was owned by somebody I do not know who the owners were ; I have nothing to do with the owners. Acting as a member of the government, acting for the Crown and in ,the interest of the public, I ordered the expropriation of that property, and saw to it that the matter was referred to the proper court in order

to liave the value of the property ascertained. The proceedings are still going on. And I doubt very much, myself-and I suggested that to the hon. gentleman-I doubt very much the propriety of bringing a matter of this kind here while it is still sub judice. Now, I do not know that there is very much more to say. This matter was one of the stock campaign arguments during the time of the last general election. I fought it on the platform in my county. All sorts of veiled charges were made against me. It was suggested that some impropriety had been committed. But, when I stated to the people of my countv the facts, as 1 have stated them'here today, my statement was accepted as satisfactory, the result being that I received a majority of 1,200 in my county, in that election.


George Eulas Foster: There were a good many arguments to back that up in your county were there not?


Frederick William Borden: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Foster) understands as well as any of us, I think, what kind of arguments are used in an election.


George Eulas Foster: I think I understand.


Frederick William Borden: I believe there was a minimum of that kind of thing in my county-it was unnecessary.


George Eulas Foster: If that was the minimum, the maximum must have been awful.


Mr. EMMERSON.: Was there a ballot-box missing in that instance?


Frederick William Borden: There was nothing of that kind. In fact, this is a case of much ado about nothing-the hon. gentleman (Mr. Sam. Hughes) has discovered a mare's nest. I do not know that I have anything more to say, except this : There was an evident intention or desire in some way to show, by quoting an extract from a speech I made in this House some time ago, that I had mis-stated the facts in that case; that while I had stated in the House that not $1,000 had been spent on militia buildings for the militia of my county since I have been minister, enormous sums had been spent-amounting to $20,000 or $25,000-in constructing rifle ranges. And the hon. gentleman (Mr. Sam. Hughes) even showed that some $1,200 or $1,300 had been spent in improving an old drill hall in that county. Now, I am prepared to admit that, to the extent of the difference between $1.000 and $1,200 or $1,300, I was in error in saying that only $1,000 had been spent in militia buildings in my county for the use of the corps immediately concerned, the corps having their headquarters in my county. The evident intention-the unfair intention on the part of the hon. gentleman was to show that my statement was not true and that thousands and tens of


Frederick William Borden: thousands had been spent in my county for the militia of my county, when the hon. gentleman knew perfectly well, quite as well as he will after I have told him again, that all this expenditure, except the paltry $1,200 I have referred to, was expended for the whole militia of Nova Scotia. This expenditure was for the establishment of a rifle range, one of sixteen targets and one of the best rifle ranges in Canada, and securing a camp ground of CIO acres-a mile square-for the use of the militia not only of the whole province of Nova Scotia, but of part of that of Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick as well. I have the satisfaction of knowing, from the highest military authorities in this Dominion, that the camp ground at Kentville is one of the best if not the best in the Dominion of Canada to-day.
But the hon. gentleman tries in some round-about way to cast suspicion of wrong doing upon this transaction. Where is the wrong doing ? It was not for me to say and I am not saying whether the land was worth one dollar, or ten dollars, or twenty dollars, that is none of my business. The value of the land has been submitted to the proper court to ascertain and it will be ascertained. It is the duty of the judge to get the best evidence with respect to the value of the land. I may say, however, Mr. Speaker, that this camp Is situated within a mile of the shire town of my county, the important town of Kentville. This 040 acres of land are well situated, surrounded by orchards on every side, with a railway passing along the whole of one side.


Robert Laird Borden: I have just made an inquiry by telephone to the officers of the Exchequer Court as to the position, which was not very clear. I found that the claim was referred to Mr; Crawley for inquiry and report. Mr. Crawley took evidence and reported in favour of the claimants, fixing the value of the land at $38,400. The Crown appealed, and the judge sent back the case to Mr. Crawley for further inquiry and report. That is the situation of the matter at present.


Frederick William Borden: As I said, it is sub judice, it is open to change. It is the duty of the judge to make up his opinion ns to the value of the land, and I do not think it can be in safer hands than in the hands of Mr. Justice Burbidge, where I am sure the interest of the public as well as the interest of the owner of the land will receive every due and fair consideration. Now what more is there to be said ? That is the whole story, it seems to me. The value is to be fixed, the land has been expropriated, everything is above board. The records are there to show. I have not familiarized myself particularly witli what has been done. I only know that the greatest care was taken to assure that the inter-

est of the people of this country might he served.


George Eulas Foster: The minister did not seem to deal with that part of the statement that $35,000 had been spent on the rifle range, and that the contract had been exceeded by $6,000.


Frederick William Borden: There is not a word of truth in that statement. I am glad my hon. friend has called my attention to it, because I agree with him that it requires an answer. The intention to construct the rifle range on these grounds was published in the newspapers in Halifax, and I think in the newspapers in this city, so that it was open to all the people of Canada to tender, and the lowest tenderer got the work, an Ottawa firm. There were several tenders, but the people who got the work are men who have done a great deal of work of this kind, are experts in the matter. They constructed the rifle Tange in Ottawa, they constructed the rifle range in Montreal and at Three Rivers, they have constructed many rifle ranges throughout Canada, and in every case they have received the contract only after open competition, and after due advertising in the public press. That is the way they got the tender at Kentville. I do not know whether one kind of wood was substituted for another or not, but I do know that the engineers in my department are exceedingly careful in all such matters, that the most careful inspection is insisted upon ; and if any change or substitution took place, it only took place under the authority of the chief engineer of the Militia Department.


George Eulas Foster: As to the appropriation.


Frederick William Borden: There is an annual vote of $75,000 for the construction of rifle ranges, and as I understand it the $19,000-1 think this range cost $19,600, possibly $20,000-was taken out of that vote.


George Eulas Foster: The contract price has been adhered to ?


Frederick William Borden: Absolutely. When the estimates come down there will be a further opportunity to discuss this matter, and if any additional information is required I will be glad to give it.


George Eulas Foster: I think, before these estimates come down and are taken up again, the minister might, in justice to the House, lay on the table whatever papers in connection with the matter are in his possession.


Frederick William Borden: I shall be very glad to do so.


George Eulas Foster: I would not like to say anything more about it until I see these papers. I will say this much, however, that I would like to get $38,400 for 640 acres of land in that part of Nova Scotia.


Frederick William Borden: I do not know whether $38,400 will be paid for it or not. But I can tell my hon. friend that he will find in that part of Nova Scotia, which I think he has visited, lots of land, farming, lands and orchard lands, which he could not buy for $600 an acre.


William Humphrey Bennett: The hon. member for Victoria and Haliburton (Mr. Sam. Hughes) read from the local papers some comments with reference to this land. The minister says, and no doubt it is quite true, that this subject attracted a great deal of attention during the last election in his riding. I do not wonder that it did. Why, two local members of parliament, by inspiration I presume, had gone around the country and bought land at $2 an acre, and in a very short time afterwards found they could sell it for $60. This must' have been pretty exceptional land, with all due deference to the county, and the minister does not contradict it.


Frederick William Borden: I did not think it was necessary for me to go into that. I have no idea what they paid. All I know as to the value of the land is this, that some thirty years ago about twenty-five acres of land which was made a hunting park, which is a part of this range, was purchased in the native condition, you might say, for $25 and acre. I ascertained that fact, and that is all I know about it. But I feel quite confident that a fair valuation for that land would be anywhere between $20 and $30.


William Humphrey Bennett: Well, it seems that that part of it which is the race track they sold at a fairly good price. But whatever prompted the two local members to go and buy 60 acres of land at $2 an acre, must have been a question that suggested itself to the electors of that riding.


Frederick William Borden: And they answered it.


William Humphrey Bennett: The hon. gentleman knows how they answered thfe question up in Edmonton a few weeks ago on the school question.


Frederick William Borden: No doubt of it.


William Humphrey Bennett: And they will answer the same question later on in Ontario.


William Stevens Fielding: Don't forget Quebec.


William Humphrey Bennett: The hon. gentleman may set that off against Centre Toronto. But be that as it may, not only do we find these two inspired local members buying 60 acres of land, but, upon inspiration that came from Ottawa, they go back and buy 200 acres more at $1 an acre, then there is another batch of it picked up at $10 an acre. The result is that as soon as it changes hands it advances from $1 and $2



an acre to rbout $60 an acre. We do not know and we have no intimation here as to who this Mr. Crawley is, or how Mr. Crawley came to be appointed. We have no intimation here as to how the case was conducted on behalf of the Crown, and it will seem as strange to the country as it was to the electors there. Perhaps the hon. minister may enlighten us why it is that these local members should go and pick up 300 or 400 acres of land which they could buy at $1 and $2 an acre and which had lain there useless for years and that suddenly an intimation is given to these gentlemen that this land is to be used for a large militia camp ground. The hon. minister states that this is a desirable tract of land, being surrounded by magnificent orchards. It must have been the irony of fate that there -should have been beautiful orchards around a tract of land that went begging at $1 an acre. It must have been struck by lightning.


Frederick William Borden: You ought to go down there and see it.


William Humphrey Bennett: I might have seen it for a long time if it could be purchased at from $1 to $2 an acre. It strikes me that it is a fair matter for discussion and I think the hon. minister should endeavour to let us know what made these gentlemen wake up so suddenly and buy this waste land at $1 and $2 an acre that immediately advances to $60 an acre. Perhaps an inkling was given to these gentlemen in the same way as it was given to certain gentlemen in regard to the half-breed scrip in the Northwest. It seems that there was an Order in Council passed that was never made public until months afterwards, and when it was made public there was nothing left. The senators and1 members from the Northwest interested had picked up all the scrip that was going begging. I hope the question will be renewed again when the estimates are under discussion, and that the hon. minister will enlighten us as to why these local members were permitted to pick up this land*at $1 and $2 an acre and to sell it afterwards at $60 an acre.


William Stevens Fielding: Has it yet been established that it is worth $60 au acre ? Why does my hon. friend (Mr. Bennett) assume that the government agreed to pay $60 an acre for it ? The matter is still before the courts, and if the land was purchased recently for $1 or $2 an acre is it not a reasonable assumption that that fact will be investigated by the judge of the Exchequer Court, and that whatever weight is entitled to be attached to that argument by the court will be given to the transaction by Judge Burbidge ? Would that not be a more reasonable assumption rather than to take it for granted that Judge Burbidge is going to authorize the payment of $60 an acre for that which was purchased for from


William Humphrey Bennett: $1 to $2 an acre ? If it is a fact that the property was purchased recently for $1 or $2 an acre, that fact undoubtedly would be investigated by Judge Burbidge and it would have whatever weight it was entitled to in fixing the value of the land.


Samuel Hughes: Would Mr. Justice Burbidge, having referred this matter to this gentleman in Nova Scotia, Mr. Crawley, be in a position to know if this land had been purchased for this price, if it had not been represented to him here in this manner ?


William Stevens Fielding: It is the business of Mr. Justice Burbidge to know all these things. That is the purpose for which he holds his court. In regard to Mr. Crawley, I know nothing of his relations with this transaction, but I know that Mr. Crawley is a most respected barrister in Nova Scotia, a son of the late Rev. Dr. Crawley, a man whose name is honoured throughout Nova Scotia, and I have no hesitation in saying that I would have the fullest confidence in the perfect fairness of any transaction with which Mr. Crawley is connected.


William Humphrey Bennett: It would seem that some person must have confidence in Mr. Crawley and as Mr. Crawley has made his report Judge Burbidge will have to deal with exactly the same evidence when it comes before him. If Mr. Crawley's judgment is good, I do not assume it is going to be appealed against. Perhaps the hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) will recollect a very remarkable case in Quebec. I refer to the case at Levis. This was a most extraordinary case. Perhaps the case with which we are now dealing may outrival it but it is hardly possible that it could do so. The Levis case was one in which the Intercolonial Railway desired to acquire a lot of land. The then Minister of Railways and Canals, Mr. Blair, sent down one of his trusted agents. He went around and saw the proprietors and they were all ready to sell at $1 a foot. When he made his report what happened ? The minister, Mr. Blair, initialled the report and recommended the purchase of the land. Mr. Archer, a barrister of Montreal, and a partner of the hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Prefoutaine) and Mr. Pugsley, were retained by some of the parties and what happened after that ? The price was advanced from $1 a foot to $2.50 a foot. Then came a letter from the hon. Minister of Justice (Mr. Fitzpatrick) advising Mr. Blair to accept a figure 300 per cent more than had been originally offered by the parties who owned the land and that was backed up- this is all on record in ' Hansard '

by the statement that the Prime Minister has recommended that the deal should be made on this basis. Then there was an appeal to the Exchequer Court with the result that the augmented price was allowed. I think that experience has taught us that these appeals have not resulted in the country

getting cheap property in the long run.
I know nothing about the merits of this case, but I do remember the Levis case in which, as a result of the interference of the Prime Minister, the Minister of Justice and the Minister of Marine and Fisheries, this land doubled and trebled in value.


Hon. R. LEMIIEUX (Solicitor General).: I do not know what happened . in the case of the St. Charles branch expropriation ; I am not familiar with that case in which the hon. gentleman (Mr. Bennett) says that Judge Burbidge increased the value of land 300 per cent. But, there is one fact that is very patent to the House. It is that according to the Exchequer Court Act the judge has the right *to refer any case to an arbitrator, or a referee if it pleases him. I appeared on the Exchequer Court in Quebec representing the Crown in a certain claim of Mr. H. M. Price of Quebec in which the court referred the case to the registrar, Mr. Au-dette. A report is made on the facts by the registrar, or referee and then the judge is free to accept or reject that report. He applies the law to the facts. It has happened not once, not twice, but in hundreds of cases in which reports were made by a referee or arbitrator or registrar that the judge would not accept his report. He would reverse the report. It happened in one case in which my firm was interested siine months ago in the matter of Paul vs. the King. The report of the referee was in favour of our clients, but when it came before the court it was reversed. It happens every day. The judge is entitled under the Exchequer Court Act to refer a case to a referee or arbitrator. Therefore, there is nothing very surprising in this case in the fact that it was referred to an arbitrator in the province of Nova Scotia. The judge is not bound by the report which is made by the arbitrator or referee.


Mr. LANCASTER.: Is not the judge bound by the evidence taken by the referee? I ask that question because of a remark made by the hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding). The hon. Minister of Finance said that it was the judge's business to get the evidence and to find these things out. Is it not a fact that the judge will take no evidence except such as is brought before the referee where the investigation is made?


Rodolphe Lemieux: If the judge is not there himself the registrar is there. The registrar acts for the judge in fifty cases out of a hundred usually. The court is there, the court controls the case, and my hon. friend, I am sure, would not say that Mr. Justice Burbidge would accept only one-sided evidence in that case.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: I am not suggesting anything of the kind. I merely want to see that we understand each other.
212i


Rodolphe Lemieux: My hon. friend knows that the court is always represented by the registrar.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: I want to find out whether the judge had before him such evidence as was reported by this referee. The judge does not hear original evidence ; he simply goes on evidence taken by the referee.


Rodolphe Lemieux: The judge decides, not on one-sided evidence, but on full evidence. The court is conducted on legal lines. There has been no complaint on that score.


Mr. BELOOURT.: It is quite open to the judge of the Exchequer Count, when he proceeds on the report of Mr. Crawley or any other person, to order further evidence if he is not satisfied with the evidence before him. He is in no sense bound, as my hon. friend would intimate, by the report of Mr. Crawley. He may order either a new reference or a hearing of evidence before himself as Exchequer Court judge ; or, after hearing this evidence, he may order a new hearing, he may set aside Mr. Crawley's report entirely. So long as the case is not decided by the judge himself, it is open to further evidence.


Mr. MONK.: Does my hon. friend the Solicitor General know whether any decision was rendered in the Exchequer Court in the case referred to by the hon. member for East Simcoe (Mr. Bennett) ; and if so, what figure was fixed by the court for the indemnity ?


Rodolphe Lemieux: I am not aware that any amount was fixed by the Exchequer Court. I understood from my hon. friend that it was not referred to the Exchequer Court, but that the amount was fixed by the department.


Mr. HAGGART.: Perhaps the Minister of Railways would be informed on that point- what the expropriation at Ldvis cost per foot.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I am not familiar with it. It was some time before I was in the department, and I do not know the facts. I have heard of that, as I have heard of the St. Charles branch case.


Samuel Hughes: I would ask the Minister of Militia to (be good enough to bring down and lay on the table as soon as convenient the data in this matter. I may say that I do not propose waiting to take it up on the militia estimates. I find that the militia estimates are passed on some evening, conveniently, when certain gentlemen happen to be out of the House. The estimates are then quietly slipped through.


Frederick William Borden: The hon. gentleman knows that an item was reserved in the estimates.


Samuel Hughes: I know. That is also held to the end of the session, and passed through in the same way. I would like the hon. gentleman to bring down the name of the owner of these 640 acres that were purchased for a drill ground, the cost of the ground, the award of the commission, the nature of the timber used in the butts, whether c-edar or hemlock-he can get a report from his engineer on this .point. I do not think I have laid myself open to the charge of being unfair. However, I will not discuss that, as I shall have another opportunity of doing so. I want the report of Mr. Crawiley to the Exchequer Court judge brought down.


Frederick William Borden: How can I get the report ?


Samuel Hughes: I am notifying the government, and the toon. Minister of Militia is a member of it.
Sir FRBDERlCK BORDEN. If my hon. -friend will allow me, it seems to me that every object will be served when this case is completed. I have no doubt that the judgment will be given in a short time, and I shall be glad to lay the judgment, the evidence and all the papers connected with the case on the table of the House.


George Eulas Foster: The minister will see that when the judgment is delivered that will end it. Maybe we can throw a little light on the matter to help the judgment.


Samuel Hughes: I think the Minister of Militia, instead of feeling hurt at this matter being brought up, if he has the interest of the country at heart, should be glad that we are strengthening the hands of Judge Burbidge and helping him to get this collateral evidence. I trust that the minister will have all this information brought down at an early date.


Frederick William Borden: I will bring down such papers as I can get. I have not any idea of the owners of the land, except from what I have read in the newspapers and what the hon. gentleman has said. Any papers in the department bearing on this matter I shall be giad to bring down at the earliest possible moment.


George Eulas Foster: We are not discussing this question from any other standpoint than that of the public interest, at the present time at least. The minister has heard today that that land, that was bought for $1 an acre, was sold to the government through the medium of interested parties, who no doubt got information that it was to be taken for such a purpose, or would be likely to be taken, and were therefore quite willing to go into the speculation. Neither of these gentlemen would have bought one arpent of that sand land unless he expected to turn it over in a speculation. Now that 1 the minister has heard of this immense bill,


Frederick William Borden: which must have astounded himself, of $38,400 for this land, on the report of the referee, based on evidence obtained by one of the most able and hot one of the scrupulous lawyers in the province of Nova Scotia, against a young man, not the ablest or the strongest, on the part of the Crown, he must see that it looks like a plant. I am not saying that it is, but it looks like it. The minister says that he cannot get at the value of the land. He can easily ascertain from whom Messrs. Dodge and Wicliwire got this land, for he can get at the record of the transfer ; there is a way by which the evidence of those who sold the land in the first place can be got, if they did not give it in the Crawley inquest; and if it transpires that that land was bought at $1 an acre by these people, not for their own use, but in order to palm it off on the government for $38,400, I do not care a penny if the case went through a thousand exchequer courts, it is a transaction that should be sat upon. If anything ever smelt like a plant, this does ; and the minister will not do his duty unless he finds out what that land cost these go-betweens ; and if it turns out that they got it for $1 an acre, it is the duty of the government not to pay that money if there is any power in the universe to prevent them.


William Stevens Fielding: I agree with my hon. friend. That is what the Exchequer Court was created for, and I would assume that, with the ease left to be dealt with by that court, the public interest would be looked after. I assume that evidence was brought forward as to the proper price to pay for the land.


Robert Laird Borden: The Exchequer Court has nothing to do with that.


William Stevens Fielding: Oh, yes ; the Exchequer Court has the right to inquire for further evidence.


Robert Laird Borden: [DOT] The Exchequer Court does not initiate the procuring of evidence. That is left to the parties-the Crown on the one hand and the claimants on the other.


William Stevens Fielding: Perhaps it is not a material point, but Mr. Justice Burbidge is himself a native of King's county, and would have enough knowledge of the value of land around there to enable him to make due inquiries.


George Eulas Foster: Mr. Justice Burbidge does not take the evidence.


William Stevens Fielding: He can.


George Eulas Foster: He simply appoints the referee.


William Stevens Fielding: At .his discretion.


George Eulas Foster: That will be the evidence taken by the referee. Who brings the evidence, who engineers it ? Dodge &

Wdckwire. Through whom ? Through a vorv able lawyer, to say the least of it, who defends the case for the government. Mr. Tremaine, of Mellreith & Tremaine. Now the evidence is so engineered, it is so made to appear to Mr. Crawley by some means or other, they may be fair or they mav not, that he gives a judgment that the' land is worth so much.


Rodolphe Lemieux: He does not give a judgment but an award.


George Eulas Foster: It is an opinion which is equivalent to a judgment. That comes before the Court of Exchequer and Judge Burbidge may have as much personal knowledge as he pleases about that land but he is bound to take the award of Mr. *Crawley.


Rodolphe Lemieux: No, no.


George Eulas Foster: At least that is what 1 think. The court will in nine cases out of ten do so, and I do not think the government's responsibility is ended because this matter has been so engineered as to bring its final decision before the Exchequer Court instead of simply an ordinary arbitration. But there remains the fact that cannot be laughed or sneered away, that men who became interested in the matter because they knew something was in the wind, bought land at the rate of a dollar an acre for which they are now seeking to get $38,400 in gross from the government, and I do not think the government has quite cleared itself, its skirts are not clean if that be a correct statement of the case, even though they shelter themselves behind the judgment of the Exchequer Court which has to work under certain limitations and can be


William Stevens Fielding: When I stated that Judge Burbidge might employ his personal knowledge I did not mean to assert that he is at liberty to use that personal knowledge in fixing his judgment. The hon. member for Sirncoe interrupted to say that he could not use that knowledge. I grant that, but he can use that knowledge to make further inquiry, he can


George Eulas Foster: Under the same engineer.


William Stevens Fielding: He can take any machinery he likes to get the information, and I presume Judge Burbidge will do that.


Alfred Augustus Stockton: You say that Judge Burbidge can institute that inquiry. Is not the government represented on one side by its agents, and is it not the duty of the agent, if there is evidence to be precured, to place it before the judge ?


William Stevens Fielding: Certainly.


Alfred Augustus Stockton: It is not the duty of the judge to go around hunting evidence. It depends on the manner in which the
case is presented to the judge how he will form his judgment and conclusion, and if the evidence is not there, no matter what Judge Burbidge's information may be as to the value of the ground in that country he is bound by the evidence placed before him. The Solicitor General shakes his head to say no, but I tell the Solicitor General that would be the judicial course for Judge Burbidge to take, according to the evidence presented before him and he is not responsible for the evidence placed before him. It is the agent of the government who is responsible.


Rodolphe Lemieux: 
Alfred Augustus Stockton: If the evidence is placed before the referee and the case is adjudicated upon by the referee and the matter goes before the judge and the government takes no other action, then in 19 cases out of 20 the judge takes the judgment of the referee. I tell the Solicitor General that is my experience in the courts.


Rodolphe Lemieux: My hon. friend has had a very wide experience. I have acted for the Crown for only two years, but I know that in 50 cases out of 100 when a referee is appointed by the judge of the Exchequer Court, and when the report is made to the judge he does not accept that report; generally speaking, he does not accept it, he requires further examination or sometimes he rejects it completely. That is my experience for the last two years and that is the law. "


Alfred Augustus Stockton: Does he do that of his own motion or on motion of counsel for the government ?


Rodolphe Lemieux: On his own motion, without the government interfering. He is above the government in these courts.


Alfred Augustus Stockton: Will the Solicitor General state a case to me in which without the suggestion of counsel for the govern-


Rodolphe Lemieux: I shall name one at once, the case of Paul against the Crown. In that case-


Robert Laird Borden: Without suggestion from counsel for the Crown.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Without any suggestion whatever.


Robert Laird Borden: That is one.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I remember this one, there are so many I cannot recall the names for the moment.


Robert Laird Borden: When was that case decided ?


Rodolphe Lemieux: A few months ago. Here is what happens. The referee is appointed, the evidence is heard by that referee. There are two counsel, one acting for the Crown, sometimes the Solicitor General, sometimes an agent of the department. The other party is represented also by his counsel. Then the report is made to the judge and the judge without any interference takes it upon himself not to accept the report.


Robert Laird Borden: That is where the counsel for the Crown do not object.


Rodolphe Lemieux: He does not consult even the counsel for the Crown, my hon. friend knows that surely.


Robert Laird Borden: I never saw him do it. My knowledge of the practice of the Exchequer Court is this : that the judge of the Exchequer Court, like every other judge in every other court I have heard of, leaves the conduct of the case to the counsel on each side. If he has taken a new course it is within the last two years, at least so far as cases from the province of .Nova Scotia are concerned. I have been Mr. STOCKTON.
engaged in a good many cases and never knew him to do anything else. If counsel for the Crown declined to cross-examine witnesses brought by the claimant the judge of the Exchequer Court would not say a word. If counsel for the Crown declined to produce any evidence in contradiction to that brought by the claimant, the judge would have nothing to say, and if the counsel for the Crown made no objection when counsel for the claimant made motion for a judgment, the judge of the Exchequer Court would, so far as my experience goes, confirm the report.


Rodolphe Lemieux: The judge has acted differently to my knowledge and the law is there permitting him to ignore the report.


Robert Laird Borden: That is not the point. My hon. friend does not seem to be able to understand the point. When counsel for the Crown raises objection there is a most ample power for the judge; every one knows that. But the Solicitor General says that the judge of the Exchequer Court is in the habit of practically taking the case out of the hands of counsel for the Crown and doing their duty himself.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I am not saying that.


Robert Laird Borden: It must be because he has learned a certain distrust of these counsel for the Crown that he has taken this course. He never did it in my experience certainly. He always supposes that counsel know more about their own eases than he does and leaves it to them to shape their case as they see fit. He leaves it to them to argue the case as they see fit, just as the judges in every court do. The judges do not raise objections which are not put forward by counsel on behalf of their own clients. To do so would be to take the case out of the hands of the counsel ; and most counsel, if they found a judge undertaking a course, which my hon. friend says is now the universal practice in the Exchequer Court, would simply take off their gowns and retire from the conduct of the case. I should certainly do so if the judge of any court undertook to conduct my case for me and to raise objections on behalf of my client that I did not propose to raise. It seems to me most unusual, yet I am bound to accept my hon. friend's statement that not only has it occurred in his practice but it is the almost universal practice.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I shall state the ease again, as my hon. friend appears to believe I do not understand the question. I say that many times a judge may not sit personally in a case but appoint a referee.


Mr.   I@: That is not what we are discussing. Every one understands that.
6677 MAY 29, 1905 6678


Rodolphe Lemieux: The referee will make a report and the judge is not bound by that report. Mr. R. L. BORDEN. The hon. gentleman went a great deal further. He said that where the counsel for the Crown made no objection whatever to the report, the judge would take the case out of his hands and himself conduct the case. Mr. LEMIEUX. Certainly. Mr. R. L. BORDEN. I never saw' it done. Mr. LEMIEUX. It happens every day in the Exchequer Court. Mr. LENNOX. The position taken by the hon. the Solicitor General in very extraordinary. There are a good many lawyers in this House, and I think he has stated a position new to almost every and perhaps to every law'yer in the House. The position he takes is that the judge of the Ex-chquer Court is not the judge but really the counsel, and the counsel. I understand, on behalf of the Crown. The Minister of Militia took the position, in the first instance. and it was followed up by the Solicitor General and the lion.- member for Ottawa (Mr. Belcourt), that of his own motion and without any suggestion from counsel the judge of the Exchequer Court would take the matter into his own hands and practically say to the counsel: You sit down. I am going to conduct this case. Well, although I am not a lawyer of prominence, I would not put up with any such treatment from any judge. I know that in some instances a judge will undertake to ask a question or two but very rarely indeed; but to say that in fifty cases out a hundred a judge will take the" matter in his own hands is a very poor compliment indeed to the counsel acting for the Crown and a very poor compliment to the government who engage such counsel. It is well the people should know-assuming that the Solicitor General is correct-the kind of baby counsel which the Crown must have engaged cases before the Exchequer Court, because no counsel of sufficient ability to conduct an important case before the Exchequer Court would put up with that kind of treatment. Mr. LEMIEUX. Let me point out to the hon. gentleman the last line of section 98 : The judge may, in his discretion, decline to act on the evidence. Mr. STOCKTON. That is not what we are discussing. In the ordinary course o1 his duties, the judge has that discretion under the Act, but he would only use it oi a suggestion from the Crown counsel, ant the position taken by the Solicitor Genera to-dav is that the judge of the Exchequei Court is the counsel for the governmenl	and not the judge as between the Crown and the subject to see that fair compensation is given for property taken. Well, let me say that the judge is not the counsel. He is there to hold the scales evenly betwen the Crown and the subject. The counsel on either side present the case as they think best, and the judge adjudicates on the case as presented. Mr. LANCASTER. The Solicitor General will find almost the same words in any statute defining the powers of a judge. Certainly the Court of Appeal may in its discretion grant a new trial, but It does not act on that discretion without an application from counsel. Mr. LEMIEUX. The Exchequer Court has very exceptional power. You would not find the same in any court, but it is to be found in the statute governing the Exchequer Court. Mr. SAM. HUGHES. Would the Minister of Finance be good enough to obtain the evidence in connection with this report of the referee and have it laid on the table ? Mr. FIELDING. I do not know that we have any access to the court which is not open to my hon. friend. We all stand equal before the courts. He is as strong a man before the courts as the Minister of Justice. Mr. SAM. HUGHES. The government might pay for the copying of the report and a private individual might have to pay for it himself. Mr. FIELDING. If that is the only difficulty. I do not think it need make any trouble. Mr. FOSTER. In the event of further evidence being taken, would the government take measures to ascertain the price at which these intermediaries got the property at first ? Even though that evidence be so arranged that the award of ps,400 is confirmed, after the statements made in the House that a large proportion of this land was bought at *1 an acre, will the government not take such measures as may be necessary to avoid paying such an extraordinary, such a criminal amount for that land ? Mr. FIELDING. I shall call the attention of the Minister of Justice to the statement made. He is responsible for the management of this case, as for all others before the Exchequer Court, and if the evidence already taken is in any way msuf-ficient I presume my hon. colleague will find it his duty to seek further evidence. I can offer no opinion. All I can say is that I shall call his attention to the matter. - Mr. FOSTER. That is all my hon. friend can do. What I wanted to have was if possible a promise not to pay that amount

of money with the acquiescence of the government.


Frederick William Borden: I mav add that from the moment the Department of Militia decided to take expropriation proceedings-as was done in the case of the rifle range at Ottawa and as is usually done-the whole matter was handed over to the Department of Justice, and it went out of the hands of the Militia Department.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House went into Committee of Supply.
Arts, agriculture and statistics-Archives- further amount required, including the salary of F. W. Grey, from March 1, 1905, at $75 per month, notwithstanding anything in the Civil Service Act, $3,000.
['I mav add that from the moment the Department of Militia decided to take expropriation proceedings-as was done in the case of the rifle range at Ottawa and as is usually done-the whole matter was handed over to the Department of Justice, and it went out of the hands of the Militia Department.']
Hon SYDNEY FISHER (Minister of Agriculture).: For a number of years we have had an officer of the archives branch in Paris picking out documents bearing on Canadian history. These are to be copied. But the force who have been copying these documents have not been able to copy nearly as many as have been picked out. The result is that, while documents have been discovered bearing upon our history- and copies of which we ought to have-to a number sufficient to fill about 3,000 volumes, we have actually copied and on the shelves here only about 300 volumes. The archivist has asked that we should proceed more rapidly with this work and this we have been doing for the last few months. An additional amount is required for this work. Moreover the archivist has been trying to prepare an indexed catalogue of the works of his branch. There has never been a complete reference book of the papers and documents. For the work of preparing such a catalogue Mr. Hrey has been engaged. I found it neces-salary to pay him $75 a month, which the Auditor General says is not consistent with the Civil Service Act.


George Eulas Foster: Who is Mr. Grey ? [DOT]


Mr. FISHER.: 
George Eulas Foster: Arts, agriculture and statistics-for the purpose of assembling at Ottawa and nationalizing live stock records of the Dominion, $5,000.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I wish to reduce this vote, by $2,000. I shall have to ask for the whole $5,000 eventually, but I find that I shall not be able to spend more than $3,000 on this service before July 1st.


George Eulas Foster: I received a letter a short time ago from the Holstein breeders. I have not the letter at hand at the moment, but as I recollect it, they seemed to think that too much respect had been paid to the freight handlers' side of the question. The minister will probably know to what I am alluding and will be able to explain it.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I think I can explain it. Probably my hon. friend (Mr. Foster) has received the same representations which have been made to myself. I do not think the difficulty he mentions is exactly the one which is most dwelt upon bv the Holstein breeders. In assembling the records so that the Department of Agriculture at Ottawa might be able to affix the official stamp to the pedigree certificates, I found, on investigation, that it was absolutely necessary, as a practical matter, that the keeping of the records should be conducted here and not at other points in the country.


George Eulas Foster: That is it.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: The Holstein breeders have desired to keep, their records still at a place called St. George, in Western Ontario. I have had to say to them that I did not see how it was practically possible for us to affix the stamp of the department to these records, and examine them in the way we ought to do before affixing that stamp, unless the records were kept here. All the other record associations have agreed to transfer their records here. I have made that a part of the conditions on which the official stamp could be affixed, and I have informed the Holstein breeders that I am ready to do in their case what I have done in the case of other breeders, but I cannot see how I can make them an exception, when I have made this condition a sine qua non with the other associations.


George Eulas Foster: That would seem fair at first glance. But are there no exceptional circumstances in the position of the breeders of Holsteins ? I understand they have hitherto kept their records at St. George.
I suppose they have an office there and that all breeders of Holsteins send in their pedigrees to that office ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Yes.


Mr.   P OSTER@: Then, I take it their objection is that they would be put to expense by establishing an office here ?


Mr FISHER.: No.


George Eulas Foster: Then what is it ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I do not know what it is.
I have been given various reasons for it, but the Holstein breeders have given no reason except that they desired to keep their records at St. George. Other breeders' associations have transferred their records from the places where they were formerly kept. More of them were kept in Toronto, and these have been transferred to Ottawa. Some records were kept in Nova Scotia and some in New Brunswick, and these have been transferred here. There are some in Quebec which 1 hope will be transferred here within a few weeks or months, some who have made objection. But they all agree without, exception that it is in the interest of the whole work that the records should be transferred here. The Holstein people are the only ones that have yet held out any objection.


Mr. LENNOX.: How many associations will transfer their records here ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I think about a dozen.


Haughton Lennox: I understand the minister will expend $5,000 altogether, and $3,000 now. Would he tell us how this money is to be expended?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I must premise that explanation by one or two statements. The nationalization of the records is for the purpose of combining all the records so that there shall be only one herd book for any one breed. There have been in some cases several herd books.


Haughton Lennox: The statutes said only one association.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: The Dominion statute said there should be only one national association, but there have been several local ones. For instance, in the province of Quebec there is a herd book in which various kinds of cattle, sheep and swine are all registered. Each individual breed has been registered in Toronto, called The Dominion Swine Breeder's Records. But in the province of Quebec, Yorkshire swine and Berkshire swine have been registered. Now the object of the nationalization of the records is to do away with all these, so that there may be only one national record. For that purpose we have got to assemble here the various records that have been in existence. We find that with those records are certain books and documents which it is necessary to have here for the proper carrying on in future of this work. When an application comes in for registration, we have to refer to the books to see whether the pedigree is right for registration. I have had to make financial arrangements with some of these smaller herd books for the purpose of getting their books made up. For instance, I have had to pay to the Nova Scotia Department of Agriculture, $300 in consideration of which they have agreed to send all their books and documents up here.
I have made an arrangement with Mr. Henry Wade, of Toronto, for a number of books which are his private property, not the property of the Breeders' Association but which are very necessary to have for my officers here to carry on this work in the department. I have had to pay $500 for those books. I have had to make an arrangement with the New Brunswick government and pay them $600 for what they have. I expect to have to make an arrangement with the Quebec breeders for some of their records, I do not know how much I shall have to pay. Besides that, we will have to purchase a considerable number of record books. For instance, we will have to procure volumes of shorthorn records in England, we will have to have in some cases certain record books in the United States, so as to be able to refer back when an application comes in ; we have to buy these books. The record associations themselves have books many of which we will have to obtain for the purpose of the department. It is for these purposes that this money is needed. We have already made arrangements which involve an expenditure of nearly $2,000. and I expect before the 1st of July to have to expend another $1,000. The rest of this money I will not expend until after the 1st of July. I hope $5,000 will cover our needs, but I am not sure of it.


Haughton Lennox: The $5,000 are the initial expenses to put it on a working basis ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Yes. I hope that will do, but that does not mean for the expenses of. the current year. That will come in under the vote for the live stock division, which I will ask parliament to grant in a short time.


Haughton Lennox: That will be granted from year to year to keep it going.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: That will be part of a large vote which I ask parliament for my live stock association.


Mr. W. F. MACLEAN.: Prospectively, how much will that vote be?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: It will be larger for the next fiscal year than it is for this year. It covers many objects. I think I shall have to ask for about $50,000 next year. I may say that is part of the large vote which appears in the mam estimates of $220,wu to cover the agriculture and dairying branches which used to be under Professor Robertson.


Haughton Lennox: I would like the minister to state about what he thinks the actual expense will be of the change that was made by the recent Act, that is, to keep this national register in operation once it is assembled here at Ottawa.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I think it will cost about $3,000 a year in the future.


Haughton Lennox: Who gets the fee ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: That fee goes to the Breeders' Association, we have nothing to do with it. The agreement which this association signed with me specifies distinctly that I shall have nothing whatever to do with their finances, because those are the finances of the individual breeders' associations. I may say that those breeders have met together and have appointed a small committee, of whom Mr. Robert Miller is the chairman and this committee have the management of their affairs. All we do is to provide for the necessary examination of the certificates of pedigree. We have to supply them with house room for their woi'k when they are brought here, and supply the stationery.


George Eulas Foster: The information I have is to the effect that there was a convention held in March, 1904, to discuss this matter and to organize, and that the stock breeders generally did not consider it wise to change their offices for various reasons. Their objections in that regard were set at rest by statements made by the minister, and by the live stock commissioner. Who is the live stock commissioner?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Mr. F. W. Hodgson.


George Eulas Foster: All the stockmen who had gathered and had discussed the matter were not favourable to the central office being established at Ottawa. He says that the breeders left that convention in 1904 thinking that they had been met sympathetically by the minister and the live stock commissioner, but they were disappointed, when, in the months of January and February last, they were met by the commissioner who referred to them certain letters from railroad freight managers which were in the line of favouring the central office at Ottawa. Most of the breeders associations fell in on that account with what they were not very well satisfied with the exception of the Holstein breeders association, and they stood out against it. A memorial, I dare say, has already been received by the hon. minister from the breeders belonging to that association. My informant says :
Me do not want to be coerced into doing that which we do not believe to be contrary to the interests of our association.
He seems to think that it is the live stock breeders in conjunction with the railway people who are pressing for this. What interest would the railway people have in it ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I will explain that when my hon. friend sits down.
,, POSTER. That is the chief part of the information outside of the memorial which the hon. minister has.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I -will explain to my hon. filend that his correspondent is mixing up two things that are entirely different. The


Sydney Arthur Fisher: question of the railways, which I will deal with at once, has nothing whatever to do with the transference to Ottawa of the records. For some time back-perhaps for six or seven years-my department has been dealing with the railways with the object of securing special rates for thoroughbred live stock in Canada. We have been very successful in this inasmuch as when a certificate of pedigree has been presented with a way-bill of registered live stock the railways have given as low as less than half the usual rates.


George Eulas Foster: That would be for breeding purposes ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: For breeding purposes and only for thoroughbred registered stock. That was done through the mediation of my live stock commissioner.


Haughton Lennox: Would that include shipments for exhibition purposes too ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: No.


Haughton Lennox: Would it include sending stock to exhibitions ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: That is another matter. We have also obtained special rates for exhibitions, but what I am speaking of are the ordinary shipments by farmers which are made every day in the year. If a farmer inwestern Ontario wants, to buy a bull for the improvement of stock in Ottawa or in this neighbourhood he can get about half rate on the shipment of that animal if he presents a certificate showing that the animal is thoroughbred. In the same way, if you want to send an animal to the Northwest Territories, or the maritime provinces, or anywhere in Canada, this arrangement is made for the special purpose of encouraging the improvement of stock. We appealed to the railways and after a good deal of negotiation and trouble we got a special rate. I must congratulate the railways upon being sufficiently public-spirited to agree to this arrangement in the interest of live stock men. Difficulties were constantly arising as to what pedigrees should be recognized. There were different kinds of pedigrees and the railway companies frequently made complaint to us, as the department at whose instigation and at whose request this privilege was given, saying that they were troubled and bothered because they got all sorts of pedigrees issued by different associations and they did not know which to recognize. This came to a head last winter when the railway companies threatened that they would have to abrogate the privilege. When it came to that point the question of the nationalization of records was proceeding, and we expressed the hope that in a short time we would be able to issue national records when all other records in Canada would be practically wiped out or ignored. In the process of these negotiations the railways came to the live stock commissioner

and through him to me and they said : We will continue these rates, but we want you to indicate to us which records we are to recognize. My colleague, the hon. Minister of Customs (Mr. Paterson), has also come to me and asked what records he should recognize of animals brought in from abroad for breeding purposes and entitled to free entry, and I have instructed my live stock commissioner to go into the matter to see what report he can make upon it. While the movement for the nationalization of records was in progress the suggestion -was made, either by the railways or the live stock commissioner-I forget which-that we should get up a certain form of record or pedigree, that that should be the recognized form and that the railways, when they get that kind of form, would know at once that it was the recognized pedigree and they must give the better rates. That negotiation is in process to-day and I think it is very well understood that the railways are only going to recognize pedigrees which are stamped by the Department of Agriculture.
But, that point has nothing whatever to do with the transference of the records to Ottawa. It is a matter of general application. It is a matter with which personally I have very little to do except to authorize my live stock commissioner to go ahead. It is a matter in which the live stock commissioner, working in harmony with the officials and the representatives of different breeders' associations, has been negotiating with the rest. That matter as to the transference of the records here has been described a little incorrectly, or, at least, certainly not consistently with my interpretation of what occurred. My hon. friend says from this letter that at the convention that took place a year ago last March in Ottawm the live stock men asked for the nationalization of the records but wanted to keep their records-in their own hands. I said certainly that I would not consent for a moment on behalf of the Department of Agriculture to interfere with the management of the records, but I did point out very clearly to them that to do the work which they asked me to do, namely, to affix the departmental stamp to each pedigree as it was issued, required that an officer of mine should have access to their books, should have an opportunity of looking over and investigating the way in which they were issuing their pedigrees, or else I could not take the responsibility of affixing a government seal to these pedigrees. If I did that without examining into the method pursued it would be a mere perfunctory operation which would be of no value to them, which would do no good and which might discredit the department. If it were to be anything more than a mere perfunctory operation it would require that my officer should see how the certificates were issued by each record association, and that he should satisfy himself that they were carrying on that work not in a way dictated by us but in accordance with their own rules and regulations. That is the whole sum and substance of our supervision.


Mr.   P OSTER@: Then they will have to have an office here and keep the books here ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Yes. I do not see how that work could be satisfactorily performed unless the issuing of these pedigrees by all these associations is carried on here. That is the wThole sum and substance of the difficulty or difference or grievance. I may say that up to the present time every breeders' association which has been in negotiation with my department has acceded to my request in that respect, with the single exception of the Holstein Breeders' Association.


George Eulas Foster: Is it a matter of compulsion. or is it optional with themselves ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Entirely optional.


William Findlay Maclean: They may come around yet ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: They may. I wrote to them the other day, impressing upon them that they would stand in the way of their own interests if they held out in this case.


Mr. BLAIN.: What explanation do the Holstein men give ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I have had no explanation, except that they do not wish to move to Ottawa, the present holder of the office preferring to retain it in his own hands.


Richard Blain: What is his name ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Mr. Clemons.


Mr. HERRON.: Where is the office of the Holstein Breeders' Association at present ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: At St. George, in the county of Brant.


John Herron: I may say that the people of the west consider that the live stock department in charge of Mr. Hodgson is doing a very valuable work in the way of bringing the western men and the eastern men engaged in stock interests together. That department has done a great deal to advance the interests of the stockmen of the west, especially by securing for us better facilities for shipping stock on the railways. I hope the work will be continued.


Haughton Lennox: I would like the minister to inform the committee whether he will continue to incorporate other associations, or w'hether the policy will be limited to those now in existence ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: By the law I can only incorporate one association for each breed. There are some breeds which are not incorporated, but I would be very glad if they could fulfil the conditions to be incorporated, and I have instructed the Live Stock Commissioner to encourage that as much as [DOT]possible. For instance, there is no associa-

tion of the breeders of thoroughbred horses in Canada. Canadian breeders have to register in the United States. I think it would be very desirable, in the interest of horse breeding in Canada, to have such an association, and I would be glad to encourage it in every way. However, it is quite open to the breeders of thoroughbred horses to have such an association or not, just as they choose. There is no coercion on the part of the department, but my policy is to encourage and help it in every way possible.


Haughton Lennox: I understood that the Act which was introduced a little while ago was by way of compromise to get over a difficulty and have the various associations concentrated here. Having that in view, I thought probably the policy of the government would be not to establish any more associations, with the object of completely nationalizing this matter in the end, by getting the various associations to surrender their rights and to come under the control of the government. I am not saying that would be the best policy, because I am not sufficiently informed to form an opinion, but I want to know if that was the view of the government.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: With regard to getting the associations under the control of the government. my policy is the very opposite. I think it is in the interest of the country that the management of these associations should be in the hands of the breeders and not under the control of the government or of any department. At the same time, I think the department can serve these people in a limited way, and I want to do that. With regard to forming new associations, there can be only one association for each distinct breed or class of animals. Where one is already formed, no other can be formed.


Haughton Lennox: What I referred to was the registration being in the hands of the government and other matters being in the hands of the different associations. '


Sydney Arthur Fisher: The breeders do not think so, and I have not wished in any way to interfere with that feeling on their part. In all my communications with them I have been very careful to insist that the government would take upon itself just as little interference with their work as was possible to carry out their views, and what I am doing is being done only at their request.
I want it thoroughly understood by tbe country that neither I nor any other officer of my department desires or wall be permitted to encroach in any way upon the rights and privileges of the breeders themselves in their own sphere.
'[DOT]Mj\ CHRISTIE. I think what brought up this whole question of nationalizing the records were the difficulties which the breeder's had with the railways, which thev have had tor several years iu connection with the shipping of thoroughbred live stock. The


Sydney Arthur Fisher: people of the west could get a thoroughbred animal brought to tbe west from any place in the east at half rates. The difficulty arose iu regard to horses. The Clydesdale Association is the recognized association ; but there is another association called the Draught Horse Association, which relates to horses which are not thoroughbred Clyde horses, but which may be part Shire and part Clyde. That association issues pedigrees, aud these horses were coming out to the western country and being sold as thoroughbred horses. The railways got on to this, and notified the .thoroughbred association that the arrangements made with them would be cancelled unless carried out as agreed. That induced the breeders to look into the matter to see what could be done, and the question came up of nationalizing all associations, with headquarters at Ottawa ; aud the breeders of thoroughbred stock are very anxious that this should be carried out. The minister has stated correctly that the management of every different breed is in the hands of the breeders, while the seal of the government is put on the certificate of any association when the government is satisfied that it is a proper one.


Mr. WM. WRIGHT.: Is there any standard of what constitutes a thoroughbred animal ? I suppose there is no means in the hands of the government for checking the registration of animals which are not thoroughbred, though they may be known as such in different sections of the country. It seems to me that in order to make the certificate valuable, there ought to be some means of showing that an animal is really a thoroughbred animal of a certain recognized class.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: The breeders themselves are very jealous in regard to that; I do not think anybody could be more so. As a safeguard, however, I may say that under our Dominion Act for the incorporation of record associations the rules and bylaws of the association have to be submitted to the Department of Agriculture and approved before the charter is issued. Then the pedigrees have to be issued under these rules and regulations and the chief use of my officer in examining the pedigree before he stamps it with the official seal is to see that it is issued properly, subject to those rules and regulations. We have first of all to acknowledge the correctness and the propriety of these rules and regulations and then all we have to see is that the pedigree is issued under those rules and regulations. If the rules regarding a society did not secure that it should bo a properly bred animal we would not sanction them and would not give a charter of incorporation to that society.


Mr. STAPLES.: I have had a little experience in bringing stock to the west. Two

or three years ago I purchased a number of heifers in the east at a certain price, getting about two-thirds of a carload of pure bred live stock. Then I filled up the car with high grade heifers, but I found that I could not get the benefit of the special rate for that reason. I do not know whether anything could be done in connection with the railway companies to give a person who wanted to bring out say half a carload of pure bred stock and the balance grades the benefit of the special rate. I figured the matter out from every point, and I found that it was to my advantage to pay the regular shipping rate, the carload rate, and take the full carload.
I only wanted about twenty pure bred, and when I put in the other ten I found it was cheaper for me to pay the regular rate. It is not every farmer who can afford and has the capital to invest in a full carload of pure bred stock and therefore he receives no benefit from the special rate. Some arrangement should be made between the association and the railway companies whereby farmers would be able to get the benefit of the special rates. I was told by the railway companies that if every one of these had been thoroughbred except one I would have to pay the full rate. It would be a good thing for the breeders in the east as well as those in the west if some arrangement could be made whereby we would have a special rate on less than a full carload.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Arrangements have been made for a special rate for the carriage of pure bred stock. Of course if you do not take a carload you cannot get the carload rate. The arrangement most usually practised is for two or three people to combine together and take up a carload, in which case they get not only the benefit of the rates, but also cheaper care. However, I shall bring the matter before my live stock officials and see if some improvement cannot be made.


William D. Staples: It is not easy to go among your neighbours and find out which one wants to get thoroughbred stock. I am speaking of an individual case.


George Eulas Foster: What is the scale of rates that the railroad will give under the Dominion Association of record as compared with the rates that are being given already to the individual breeders' association ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: There is no difference. Lately we have had just as good rates as we expect to have in the future unless we can make better arrangements.


George Eulas Foster: Then it will not make them any higher ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I hope that perhaps in the future we will be able to get better terms than in the past. What I meant was that
the railways found so much confusion regarding pedigrees that they threatened to take away the advantage.
Cattle quarantine-further amount required, $40,000.


Haughton Lennox: How much was the old amount?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: A hundred and fifty, I think.


Mr. ELSON.: I wish to ask the minister what course is usually pursued in regard to quarantining cattle?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: That is rather a broad question. Does my hon. friend mean cattle coming into the country?


Peter Elson: Yes.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: They are kept for ninety days in quarantine at the quarantine station when coming in from Europe or any port not in America. We have no detention on the American frontier, except that if they do not bring a certificate that there is no disease where they came from with certain exceptions, and if they do not bring a turberculine test certificate we detain them until they are tested. That takes two or three days.


Richard Blain: I wish to ask for some information with respect to the spread of glanders among horses. I have a communication here from a gentleman in my own county. I shall not read it all but shall quote a paragraph or two. He says :
About August 1st last I bought a horse from a farmer near here, and about September 30th the government veterinarian called and found the said horse to have symptoms of glanders and ordered same to be destroyed, which was done in his presence, but nothing whatever has been done by way of remuneration for this horse which cost me $65.
Further on he says :
I was put to about $25 expense by being unable to use my stable and by pulling down and rebuilding same. You will kindly take this matter up for me with the proper parties, which I hope will act wisely in the matter.
(Sgd.) J. M. BRUMMELL,
Mona Road.
February 14, 1905.
This seems to he a case of hardship, but it is possible the minister may be able to give the committee a satisfactory explanation. In looking over the report of the Dominion veterinarian, Doctor J. G. Rutherford, I find several references to the question of the spread of glanders among horses. At page 11 of that report the gentleman says :
I regret to have to report that it has been necessary, during the past year^ to deal with a large number of cases of glanders. The disease has, as usual, prevailed to a greater extent in the' Northwest Territories than elsewhere in the Dominion, 219 horses having been destroyed

there during the year. This is a considerable increase over previous years.
The minister will notice that the spread of glanders in the Northwest Territories is on the increase. Further on he says:
The serious outbreak discovered in the Ottawa district in August, 1902, has claimed a great deal of attention, and largely occupied the time of several of our officers.
A number of minor outbreaks have also been dealt with in Ontario and Quebec, while several cases have occurred in British Columbia. The disease made its appearance in the Yukon Territory during the winter months, and a considerable number of horces have been destroyed by the territorial authorities. 313 horses have been killed during the year by our officers, While a very large number of contact animals have been submitted to the mallein test and dealt with on the system outlined in mv report of last year.
Coming to the question of compensation, at the same page, he says :
I would, however, strongly recommend that some compensation should he paid to owners of horses slaughtered after reacting to the third test, so long as they show no clinical symptoms of the disease. While there may be a question as to the necessity, or even the wisdom, of paying compensation for horses killed when clini-oally affected such animals being highly dangerous not only to other horses but also to human beings.
It appears, In the opinion of the chief veterinary, that horses afflicted with glanders are dangerous, not only to other horses with whom they come in contact, but to human beings such as the man engaged in taking care of them and working them. Further on he says :
The experience of ail other countries goes to show that the payment of a reasonable compensation for animals destroyed is one of the strongest inducements to owners to report outbreaks of disease to the proper authorities.
Then he gives the number of horses destroyed by the various veterinary inspectors in different parts of the Dominion. When a veterinary surgeon enters a farmer's stable, finds a horse affected with glanders, and decides, after thorough examination, that the animal should be killed and orders it to be killed for the better protection of the other horses in that neighbourhood, it seems to me that the government should make some provision for the payment of at least' some portion of the amount which the farmer has to lose. Take the case of the gentleman I have mentioned, who bought a horse for $65, which the veterinary ordered to be killed. It was killed in his presence, so that the owner lost the $65 and m addition had to pull down and rebuild , stable at a cost of $25. The animal was killed in his own interest to some extent but also, according to the report of the chief veterinary, in the interests of the other owners of horses in that neighbourhood It will be remembered that this man bought the Mr. BL,AIM.
horse from one of his own neighbours, which the veterinary surgeon ordered to be destroyed. I think that the law should be so changed that when an animal of this kind is killed the government should pay him some compensation.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I agree with my hon. friend, but the question is one that has come up a good many times in this House, and there has always been very considerable disinclination shown by parliament to the payment of compensation. My hon. friend can well remember the discussions we have had regarding the payment of compensation in the case of animals infected with tuberculosis, which were killed to prevent the spread of the disease, and the same question has arisen on other occasions in connection with other diseases. There have been sporadic cases of glanders throughout the country, but more largely in the Northwest than in the east, and the department did not see its way clear to grant compensation, in the face of the views expressed in parliament. No doubt there were some individual cases of hardship. In fact some came before me that concerning which I felt the greatest hesitancy, but at the same time I did not see how I could give compensation without being properly authorized. The disease, however, seemed to be spreading, and it was represented to me that it was because no compensation was being paid. On this account the owners of animals afflicted with the disease were keeping them concealed and using them and spreading the disease, whereas if compensation were allowed they would perhaps have drawn the attention of the veterinaries to the cases and have been willing to have the animals slaughtered. After discussing the matter very carefully with my colleagues last summer and also iu consequence partly of certain discussions here when we amended the Contagious Diseases of Animals' Act, I eventually recommended the passing of an order which would authorize me to pay compensation where the animals were clinically affected. An animal is clinically affected when the disease is apparent to the ordinary uneducated eye. The owner could see that the animal was diseased without knowing what the disease was. Under such circumstances we felt that the animal had reached the stage when it was practically worthless and therefore we need not pay any compensation. However, we passed the order on the 19th September last, authorizing me to pay compensation when the animals were not clinically affected but reacted to the mallein test, which is supposed to be an absolute proof of the presence of glanders. M,v veterinary said that the danger of spreading the disease was not so great in the case of animals clinically affected as in the case of animals which had come in contact with those and

had become merely affected by the disease but did not show it, but in which the disease was liable at any moment to show. The result was that when an animal was found to have come in contact with one clinically affected, we tested it with the mallein test. But first of all wre made regulations by which, at the option of the owner, he might have the animal quarantined. Otherwise it would be slaughtered and no compensation given.
This went on some little time, and we found a great deal of feeling throughout the country. Some people got compensation and their neighbours did not. It was difficult to. explain the difference between one case and another. The ordinary person who did not receive the explanation could not understand the difference and many felt they were being badly treated. This occasioned a great deal of difficulty. And we found again that people who had clinically affected horses were using them as much as they could, but trying to conceal the symptoms, and probably spreading the disease. Many representations were made to me by members of parliament and others throughout the country ; and, eventually, after careful consideration, it was decided to undertake a vigorous campaign against the disease and stamp it out as far as possible. For this purpose, we decided to pay compensation in every case and to slaughter all horses affected, wherever found, without reference to the desire of the owner. On that understanding a further Order in Council was passed on the 25th of March last, authorizing me to slaughter horses affected with glanders and to pay the compensation which the law provides in other similar cases.


Richard Blain: What would that be ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Two-thirds of the value of the animal as estimated by the veterinary surgeon who authorizes the slaughter. This is the same as in the case of other animals slaughtered under similar circumstances. I find that, since this Order in Council was passed and with the activity with which I considered it necessary to prosecute this campaign to stamp out this disease, we are killing a great many horses and paying out a very large amount of money. I shall be obliged to ask parliament, for the next year, to give me a very considerably larger sum to deal with this disease in this way.


Richard Blain: How much has been paid out since this order came into force in March last ?	,


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Since the commencement of payment, the sum paid out is $29,000.


William Findlay Maclean: Mostly in what part of the Dominion ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Wherever a ease has occurred.


William Findlay Maclean: Where has the disease been most prevalent ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: In the Northwest. At present there are two or three outbreaks in Quebec that have been occasioning a good deal of trouble. But the Northwest appears to be the chief seat of the disease. It is about a year or a year and a half ago that we first found cases in Quebec. There have been a good many about Ottawa. Last summer or fall, about 75 or 80 horses were slaughtered within five miles of where we sit.


William Findlay Maclean: Can that be ' traced to the importation of western or Mexican horses ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: No, I do not think so. That statement has been made, and it may be correct ; but we have no proof, and I think we would have had proof if it had been true.


William Findlay Maclean: This is going to run into a large sum of money.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Yes. I have told my colleagues that I would probably have to ask for $100,000 additional.


Samuel Hughes: Has the hon. minister paid out any sums for horses in the Northwest ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Yes, I think so. We have been dealing with every part of the country exactly the same.


Samuel Hughes: A great many horses were killed by order of the veterinary of the Mounted Police at Fort Saskatchewan.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: When ?


Samuel Hughes: Last November and December.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: If they were not clinically affected we would pay compensation for them. I have already explained that.


Samuel Hughes: Some complained that the veterinary had ordered horses to be killed that need not have been killed. I refer to the country east and north of Bteaver lake.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I can look up that instance. We have constantly had representations of that kind, and I have had them carefully looked into. I have been disposed to deal with such cases on the principle of giving the owner the benefit of the doubt, because I have felt that often it was a case of hardship. Still, I never had authority to pay compensation for the slaughter of horses for glanders until September 19th last. Miany cases occurred before that-scattered cases. There were many cases of hardship in the Northwest in the case of settlers whom I would have been glad to deal with generously had I had authority to do anything, but I could

not give compensation because the Order rnent have not been doing any work in this in Council was not passed until September line, but my officers have been doing the
19.


William D. Staples: Does the kon. minister include Manitoba when he speaks of the ' Northwest.'
work. I will deal with Manitoba just as I have dealt with every other province, but I cannot undertake to pay compensation for horses, the order for slaughter of which was issued by the provincial government


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Yes.


William D. Staples: How long is it since compensation was paid in Manitoba ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: None was paid until September 19.


William D. Staples: Have they been receiving compensation there since September 19?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Any horses that were slaughtered by any of my officers since the 19th of September last were compensated for provided they were clinically affected. This was up to March 25, when the Order in Council was passed to allow me to pay for any horse slaughtered on account of glanders.


William D. Staples: I have had a good deal to do with this question of glanders in Manitoba since I came here, because in my own district the people have sustained great losses. I have taken up this question with the chief veterinary officer, but he has only been allowing compensation in Manitoba since January last. I understand that compensation was not given until some arrangement was made between this government and the government of Manitoba. I think it would be only fair in Manitoba to those who have sustained losses through this- cause that the rule should be made retroactive so as to place the people of Manitoba on the same level as the people of other provinces. During the months of December and January, I believe, about twenty-five horses were slaughtered in my own district for which no compensation was given. Those in other provinces who had sustained similar losses having been compensated, I feel that we are entitled to the same treatment.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: My hon. friend (Mr. Staples) is not fully seized of the facts. The orders for the slaughter of the horses to which he has referred were issued by the provincial government of Manitoba, and with that work 1 had nothing to do. While we were at work in this matter the provincial government also entered upon the work. The provincial government asked my department to take over the business of settling for horses killed on this account in Manitoba. I agreed to do this, but. at the same time. I said I could not be responsible for what the provincial officers had been doing, that I could only act through my own officers. The arrangement was concluded about January between the chief veterinary officer of the department and the provincial authorities. Since that time, I understand, the provincial govern-Mr. FISHER.
and carried out by the provincial officers. We only pay compensation under any circumstances, for any animals in any part of the country, the slaughter of which has been ordered by my own officers.
Mr. STAPLE'S. The provincial authorities, I understand, have turned the whole matter over now to the Dominion authorities, but when this matter was under the jurisdiction of the provincial government, and when those who had their horses slaughtered asked for compensation, the answer they invariably got was : We have nothing to do with it, it is under the jurisdiction of the federal government. Now, the provincial government, las I -understand, were getting ready to hand over the ''entire jurisdiction to this 'government, the department here were willing to take it over. Now, as this transfer was contemplated ever since September, I think that those parties in the province of Manitoba who have had to lose their horses should receive compensation up to that date. I know farmers out there who had to slaughter their last horse, and they can ill afford to suffer the loss. There Is another question. I would ask that the government here appoint local veter-inaries as well as district veterinaries, I understand tnat the officers now looking after glanders in Manitoba are appointing certain veterinaries whose jurisdiction covers large districts. The local council asked that you should appoint as well a local veterinary in each municipality, and let them report to those who have jurisdiction over a larger district. I think the minister will see the force of that. A disease breaks out, aud by the time you reach the man who has to issue a certificate, and before the horse can be slaughtered, the disease may have spread. There is another difficulty. According to the Act a person is noit entitled to compensation unless the horse reacts to the third test. The trouble is that the moment the farmer-I won't say all the farmers, but a certain class of horse dealers-the moment they see a horse has the sign of glanders, they immediately trade him off. I believe that if fair compensation was granted for a horse that showed the slightest sign of the disease, we would much sooner stamp the disease out than we can do when we have to wait until the horse reacts to the third test.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: My hon. friend (Mr. Staples), not unnaturally, confuses these different orders. When we dealt with the question of the mallein test, we gave a certain option to the owner, that if he was not satisfied with the first test he might hold

his horse In quarantine, in which case he could not sell it except under severe penalty, and the purchaser could get hack at him without any trouble. He could hold the horse in quarantine and afterwards have it re-tested. This was an option which we gave to the owner, because sometimes he was not satisfied with the first test. But it is only when the owner desires to do so, and if the owner so desires and takes that option, we also say that we do not then undertake to pay compensation. If he is going to get his compensation he must hold to the first test. If he is not satisfied to do that, he can hold his horse in quarantine, and if it is retested and found to be diseased, he will have to lose his chance for compensation. We do that for the purpose of discouraging the holding of an animal in quarantine which we believe is diseased. I may say ithat the mallein test is looked upon by veterinaries as a pretty fair test, and we believe that a horse which has re-acted to the mallein test is diseased and ought to be slaughtered. If a man insists upon holding his horse after it has re-acted on that test, we think he ought to lose his chance of getting compensation. If he were to sell it in the way my hon. friend points out, he would be subject to a severe penalty under the law, and the purchaser would be easily able to get back his purchase money.


Mr. LAKE.: I am glad to hear the Minister of Agriculture say that he has decided to grant compensation in all cases in which horses are slaughtered with the intention of trying to stamp out this disease of glanders. Only the other day, in one of the smaller newspapers of the Northwest, I saw a statement to the effect that the department had decided to grant this compensation in cases where there were clinical symptoms. It is a question in which I have been taking some interest, and I was surprised to find that it was not made more generally known that the department had changed its policy in this respect. There is another question that I would like to bring up in connection with this change of policy on the part of the department. On the 19th of September last, apparently, the minister was first authorized to grant compensation for horses which showed no clinical symptoms, hut which re-acted to the mallein test. Between that time and the 25th of March, when the new policy was adopted, there have been a considerable number of horses slaughtered. It is not always quite certain, even when the symptoms appear to be clear to the veterinary who happens to be examining, that a horse is affected with glanders. Veterinaries are liable to err just as much as doctors. I am convinced in my experience -with outbreaks of glanders in the Northwest that many mistakes have been made, that horses have been condemned as having clinical symptoms and have been slaughtered by the government officers 213



[Stage Direction]
which have not been affected by glanders at all. Now, It is probable there were many such cases between the 19th of September and the 25th of March, and I think it would be good policy in consideration of any cases of hardship which may have occurred during that period to make this order retro-ative, at any rate, as far back as the 19th of September last. I think no harm will be done by doing so. I further think that information in regard to the new policy of the department should be spread broadcast through the country. A great effort ought to be made to stamp out this disease. I think when it is known that the government will pay compensation, even when there are clinical symptoms present, it will encourage the owners of horses to bring out any horse which is under suspicion and have it examined. In this way the department will be more likely to stamp out the disease.
Sydney Arthur Fisher: It _ would be difficult to make this retroactive. I am afraid if we once began that we would never know where to stop. I would not like to start it.


William D. Staples: Suppose I were able to testify from personal knowledge of cases where men had lost their horses slaughtered, and suppose that what I said was corroborated by other strong evidence, in that case I think compensation should be allowed. I might ask the hon. minister why it was that the province of Manitoba was not considered until some time in January, when other provinces were receiving compensation ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: It was due to some objections, the Manitoba government themselves had to handing over the work to us. We had been negotiating for some time and we were ready to do it, but they did not seem to want us to take it over.


Haughton Lennox: Did not the Order in Council apply to all Canada 1
Mr. FISHER, Yes. It was not undertaken in Manitoba because the local government officers were doing the work.


William D. Staples: Why had you not the same right to go into Manitoba and deal with the disease there as you had in other provinces?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Because the local government was doing the work.


Mr STAPLES.: They were doing the work because it was very necessary that they should do it until it was taken over. I do not see any reason why the province of Manitoba should be held up when all the other provinces in Canada were being assisted.
Mr. FISHER, They were not held up in the slightest degree.


William D. Staples: They did not receive the same assistance.


EDITION
Sydney Arthur Fisher: That was their own fault.


William D. Staples: Will the hon. minister consider the advisability of appointing a local veterinary surgeon ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: We tried that but we found that it does not work well at all. The local veterinary is frequently influenced by the feeling in the neighbourhood and we have to send a man from some other place. It is the duty of any local veterinary, whether called in or not, if he knows of a case, to report it immediately to the department. We have found that the handling of these cases, especially where compensation is concerned, by a local veterinary is very unsatisfactory and I could not undertake to return to that method.


Richard Blain: Are the horses to be killed under the instructions of one veterinary examiner and as the result of one examination, or under the instructions of the government veterinary examiner without any eorrobor-rative evidence ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Yes, they are to be killed on the report of the government verterinary. That is the case in regard to the slaughter of other animals-hogs, cattle and horses.


Richard Blain: I rather agree with my hon. friend from Qu'Appelle (Mr. Lake) that the hon. minister should have made this Order in Council a little better known to the people of Canada, and I think, that, particularly when the House is in session, these special orders which are passed by the government should be made known to the House at least. Here is a special Order in Council passed on the 20th March when this House was in session by the instruction of the hon. Minister of Agriculture himself ; yet, the House has been in session continuously since January 11 to this moment and the hon. minister has never thought it to be his duty to make a statement to that effect in the House so that the members would know it. When Orders in Council are passed regarding important questions touching the whole of the people of Canada I think the hon. minister should make a statement to that effect, so that members of parliament should be well informed on these questions. My hon. friend shakes his head.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I only shake my head because that is not the practice.


Richard Blain: I am condemning the method because it is not the practice. Here is the hon. Minister of Agriculture, having charge of the duty of checking the spread of a very dangerous disease among horses, a certain Order in Council is adopted and then cancelled and a very important Order in Council is passed on the 19th of September, a few days before the issue of the writs for the general election. It may have some significance perhaps, but I will not discuss that, nor another Order in Council passed on Mr. STAPLES.
March 20th. I am very much surprised that the hon. minister did not think it his duty to stand up and make a statement so that those representing different districts throughout Canada interested in this question would have an opportunity of communicating the contents of this Order in Council to their constituents instead of having to wait for several weeks for the people to be informed on the question. I condemn legislation by Order in Council.


Richard Stuart Lake: In reference to the question of whether this provision should be retroactive or not I wish to point out that it appears that a man whose horse was examined on the 25th March by the veterinary inspector, and found to have clinical symptoms, will receive compensation for the horse. If the veterinary happened to get round to his neighbour the day before, that neighbour would receive no compensation for his horse. It seems a case of hardship and there will be a great deal of heart burning in certain places in regard to this matter. As the department have practically agreed that this compensation should be granted for all horses slaughtered they should have gone one step farther and made the 19th September the date from which the payment of compensation should begin.


George Eulas Foster: If the committee will pardon me a moment or two there is a question that is raised here which is I think a somewhat Important one. Is this legislating by Order in Council for the payment of public money without the authorization of parliament ? If you can do this it seems to me you can do almost anything.


William Stevens Fielding: There must be an appropriation.


George Eulas Foster: There must be an appropriation, but there must be an appropriation for an expenditure in view of that legislation by Order in Council. No such policy as this has been pursued in Canada before. The Minister of Agriculture is launching out under an Order in Council which includes a ciass of expenditure which has not before been recognized by parliament but which is distinctly outside of the policy heretofore in vogue. For instance, there was no authority at all at a certain time to pay even part of the value of any horses which were killed on account of this disease. I think that policy remained up to or within a very short time ago-up to September, do I understand the minister ? Am I right in this that up to September there was no payment for horses that became diseased in this way and were slaughtered by the orders of the veterinary ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: There was no provision by Order in Council, but the statute always has contemplated that provision being made by Order in Council at any time.


George Eulas Foster: 
Sydney Arthur Fisher: My hon. friend to a certain extent, perhaps, is right, but still not quite. There is a large vote every year for the protecting the health of animals and for cattle quarantine. That money is first of all voted by the House and it is then expended under the Animals Contagious Diseases Act, which Act authorizes the payment of compensation under Order in Council. The power was fully in existence when the vote was passed. It has been exercised in days gone by in regard to other diseases, and power was clearly and distinctly given by the Act to Council to pass an order at any time in regard to this class of payments.


George Eulas Foster: I think it is stretching it.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: To-day, for instance, there is $10,000 additional on this year, which is very largely due. Of course, if the House says that it will not grant the money, the Order in Council will have to be rescinded.


George Eulas Foster: That same argument could be used in every case. I think it would be better to ask the House for the money first. My hon. friend talks about $100,000. If he makes a policy of this kind general throughout the Dominion, $100,000 would be a small amount compared with what he would have to pay. It would amount to hundreds of thousands. Then the point comes, how far should the government, acting for every individual in the country, bear the whole or the major part of the expense? Then, the minister will have to be very careful of two things: first, what diseases come over the border, and, secondly, what steps are taken in our own country to stamp out these diseases? A very profitable trade could be carried on in old and diseased 2131
horses if the government paid two-thirds of the cost in every case. In the third place, he will have to be careful about the veterinarians he appoints, on whose recommendations the money is paid. I quite agree with the minister that local veterinarians should not be relied on in every case. Not that they will not be found honest, but the pressure upon them is often too great to withstand.
At six o'clock, committee took recess.
After Recess.
Committee resumed at eight o'clock.


John Herron: I was going to ask the minister at six o'clock if this compensation allowed for animals slaughtered to prevent the spread of contagious diseases applies to anything except horses with glanders ?
Mr. FISHER, It does not apply to horses with any other disease. We pay compensation as a regular rule for hogs that are slaughtered for cholera. We also paid for many years for cattle affected with the Pictou cattle disease, a disease prevalent in a very small area of Nova Scotia and in Prince Edward Island. By the law the minister can pay compensation, but as a matter of practice the minister has never done so except on Order in Council. Council passes regulations authorizing such payments and the regulations do not authorize any payment of compensation except for hogs slaughtered for cholera, cattle affected with the Pictou, cattle disease and for horses affected with glanders.


John Herron: The reason I asked the question is that in the locality where I live a very serious disease has broken out among horses this last year. Is the minister aware of the fact ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Yes.


John Herron: The maladie du colt.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I think we have authority to pay compensation for horses affected with maladie du colt. I must have It looked up but I think that is the case.


John Herron: That I believe is a more serious and fatal disease than glanders at the present moment.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: It is very serious.


John Herron: And if it spreads to any extent I am certain it will be more serious. At present it prevails in a portion of Alberta, but we have had some hundreds of horses affected there in the last few years. I know one herd in particular where 20 mares and an entire horse worth about $1,000 have been under quarantine for 12 months before I left home. The owner has been ordered to slaughter the horses, but the animals are still alive. I think the government are experimenting to some extent with the disease at a large quarantine station at

Lethbridge. X would like to know the results.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: My hon. friend is quite correct in what he says about this disease. It was introduced from the United States some little time ago. It was only recently,
I think perhaps 15 or 16 months ago, that the chief veterinarian adviser of the department found some cases of it. Knowing the very serious character of the disease immediate active steps were taken to examine into the condition of affairs and as my hon. friend says it was found that there was a considerable number of affected animals. To act promptly we wished to see at first whether there was any necessity for slaughter, and we therefore cellected all the animals we could find affected with the disease in a certain quarantine station. My chief veterinary inspector went up and consulted with the horse owners and ranchers in the neighbourhood and some considerable number-speaking from memory I think over 200 horses- were collected in the quarantine grounds to which my hon. friend refers. We have been watching it there. The disease is chiefly visible at certain times in the year ; in the spring it is more likely to be found than at any other time. iMy hon. friend probably is aware of the nature of the disease. The chief veterinary officer, Dr. Rutherford, is at present up in the Northwest examining further into the condition of affairs. He has been up there now two or three weeks and is going to stay there two or three weeks more for the express purpose of investigating the condition of affairs. We have not slaughtered animals for the disease yet wherever we find them ; we quarantine them and if we slaughter them we will probably have to pay compensation according to the advice I receive from the chief veterinary officer. Here is a regulation relating to it:
Every owner, breeder or importer of, or dealer in horses, shall on perceiving the appearance of maladie du coit, among the animals owned by him or under his special care, give immediate notice to the Minister of Agriculture and to the nearest veterinary inspector of the Department of Agriculture of the facts discovered by him as aforesaid.
Then it goes on about the entire horses and the rules against their running at large.
No animal which is affected with maladie du coit shall be permitted to run at large or to come in contact with any animal which is not so affected.
And the officers were authorized to quarantine places where these horses had been, and they have power to isolate and quarantine these animals.
The veterinaiy director general may, from time to time, order the slaughter, castration or other disposition of animals affected with mala-die du coit.


John Herron: We have not yet taken power to pay compensation. I believe that when my veterinary adviser returns, if the report is such as to require any slaughter of these animals we will be obliged to pay compensation. The law requires two-thirds of the value of the animal to be paid up to a certain sum. I hope within a few weeks to' get a very complete report on the present condition of affairs, and until that comes I would not like to say anything more definite at the present time.


John Herron: Can the minister say where the disease came from ? Is it supposed to have originated somewhere in Montana or Wyoming ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: There is a certain section of the United States where this disease has been common for a good many years. It was restricted in the United States by severe precautions and the authorities there asserted and our reports from there indicated that it was very circumscribed. Just where the disease came from into Canada we do not know. It had evidently been in the country for some little time before any report was made too late probably to make any satisfactory statement as to where it came from. I have no doubt it came across the line but just where I cannot say.


William D. Staples: How any veterinary surgeon inspectors are there in Manitoba, who are they and where are they located ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I am speaking rather from memory. There are Dr. Little, of Winnipeg, and Dr. McGillivray, also of Winnipeg, Dr. McGillivray, I think, did not reside in Winnipeg. I think he went there to live after he had been appointed one of our officers. Dr. Torrance is another. Then there is Dr. Robertson, who is at Emmerson, I think, and there is Dr. Schultz, of Gladstone.


William D. Staples: Has each doctor a district?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Each has authority anywhere in the province, but each probably does his main work in some district. Those in Winnipeg are liable to be called out of the city from any part of the province.


William D. Staples: Upon what date did the minister take over the control of matters with regard to glanders in Manitoba?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: nor did they, that both authorities should engage in it. But, when we made changes affecting the w'hole Dominion including Manitoba, it was suggested that we should take over the whole matter and that the Manitoba government should cease to deal with it. Eventually we came to an arrangement of that kind.


William D. Staples: Then, I am to understand that, owing to the minister not exercising the authority he has, and the fact of the provincial government dealing with the glanders question, those who were unfortunate enough to have horses slaughtered on this account will receive no compensation. In view of the fact that people suffering similar losses elsewhere were compensated, I think that is hardly fair. I would like an explanation from the minister why Manitoba is not dealt with the same as other provinces from September, when the Order in Council was passed up to the time when this department took control of them.
Mr. FISHER, Of course, the work done by that provincial government was done under the provincial laws. I am not familiar with these laws, but I am informed that there was a provision by which certain of the municipalities could enforce the law.


William D. Staples: But the provincial law could not prohibit the Minister of Agriculture from exercising his authority under the Dominion law?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: No.


William D. Staples: Then, I claim that the rule should be made retroactive and that these people should be compensated.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: That is a matter that may be open to argument.


John Herron: I was glad to hear the minister speak of maladie du colt and to know that he has recognized the importance of this matter. It is a far more fatal disease than glanders, and the shipping of a carload of horses from where it exists may spread it all over Canada, for it is a hard disease to check. If there is danger of it being brought in from the United States the horses coming from that country should be examined with the greatest care. I would urge the minister to guard carefully against the spread of the disease where it exists.


Mr. W. J. ROCHE.: The minister has referred to the provincial law giving the municipalities jurisdiction in regard to glanders. I think this was optional. Some of the municipalities gave compensation and some did not. I read in one of our local papers that one of the Dominion officials, Doctor Schultz has been in my district and, in conjunction with the local veterinary, has ordered the shooting of a number of horses for glanders. That particular municipality
gave compensation. But I see that they have had a great deal of glanders in a district probably forty miles in length and that many horses had to be destroyed. The municipality has suffered so much that they have given notice of the repeal of the by-law for it was too great a drain on the municipal treasury. I presume that the horses shot now will be compensated for by the Dominion government. Do the officials to which the minister has referred make reports at stated intervals to the department, or do they report to the head office in Winnipeg? Is there any superior in Winnipeg to whom they report?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Every case is reported here direct-a separate report for each case.


William James Roche: Doctor Little, Doctor McGillivray and Doctor Torrance are all in Winnipeg. Are all on an equality, or is there any to whom the others report ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: All report here direct. Speaking from memory-as the chief veterinary officer is in the west, and I have nobody at hand who can give me the exact information-I think that one of these officers was given some general charge of the whole province. But they all have authority in all parts of the province and they all report here and not to any officer in Manitoba. But one of them is looked upon as the leader.


William D. Staples: Doctor McGillivray ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Yes, I think so.


William D. Staples: What salaries do these officers receive?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I cannot say offhand, but I think they receive from SI,200 to $1,500 a year ?


William D. Staples: On what principle are these officers appointed ? Why are they all selected from Winnipeg ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: They are not. Dr. McGillivray did not live in AVinnipeg until he was appointed. Dr. Schultz did not live in Winnipeg. There Is another of these officers living in Crystal City. I think that Dr. Little and Dr. Torrance were the only two who lived in Winnipeg until Dr. McGillivray moved there. And I think the reason Dr. McGiMivray moved to Winnipeg is that as the railways centre in there one can more quickly and cheaply reach any part of the province from Winnipeg than from any other place.


William D. Staples: Other veterinaries made application for appointment. For instance, take the southwestern part of Manitoba. There was one veterinary in Carman, a thoroughly eligible man, from a political as well as from every other standpoint. And Carman is a central point. Yet this gentleman did not get the appointment. Upon

what principle Is the selection of those officers made ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: My chief veterinary officer is a Manitoba man, and I referred the matter largely to his opinion, as he knows about it more than I do or anybody else, having lived in that province many years and having been a member of the local legislature there, where he had a great deal to do with the framing of the Manitoba law with regard to veterinary work.


Mr. CLEMENTS.: Does the $1,500 include travelling expenses ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: No ; they send in their expenses.


Haughton Lennox: It would be satisfactory to the committee if the bon. minister would explain bow be finds that lie has the power to appropriate the money be did last year for the purpose of compensating for the destruction of cattle. At the time that we granted the appropriation last year there was no law in force enabling him to grant compensation to any one in the case of the destruction of cattle on account of glanders.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Yes, there was.


Haughton Lennox: There was a law enabling us to make compensation, but no provision for compensation until an Order in Council was passed. At the time we were making the grant there was no Older in Council. Consequently there was nothing at that time before the House which would authorize the paying of this money. It was oniy subsequently, on the 29th of 'September last, that the Order in Council came into force.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Under the 12th section of the Aot the Governor in Council may order compensation to be paid the owners of animals and also make regulations. Those regulations are embodied in an Order in Council, and then we pass an individual Order in Council for every individual payment.
Mr. R, L. BORDEN. Does the minister, in fixing the compensation, observe the limit set forth in section 12 of the Act of 1903 ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Always.


Haughton Lennox: This afternoon he said that the limit was two-thirds the value of the animal.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Yes, up to a certain point.


Haughton Lennox: The minister did not say that.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I think I did.


Haughton Lennox: He simply said that the amount paid was two-thirds the value of the animal. Will he explain now what it was he did say ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I followed the regulations exactly. There was an Act passed last year changing the compensation from one-third in some cases and three-quarters in others Mr. STAPLES.
to a flat third all through. The statute of 1903 covers the whole Act. Then last session we passed an amendment with regard to compensation alone.


Richard Blain: Can the minister tell what amount of money was paid in compensation between the passing of the Order on the 19th of September, to the final order that was passed on the 20th of March ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I cannot say exactly,, because the statement is not divided according to those dates, but from October 22, which was the date of the first payment under the Order in Council of September,, to February 20, there was $8,942 paid. I could not say how much was paid in each province ; but in round figures it was chiefly in the Northwest Territories and: Quebec. There was not one case in the maritime provinces.


Richard Blain: Perhaps the minister might give us the figures.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Up to the present date, $29,000 ; up to the 20th of February about $9,000, that was about a month before the change. That is as far as I can give the figures.


William Findlay Maclean: How do the returns look for the present month ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: They are pretty heavy. Since this decision to pay for all cases was come to, on an understanding that a most determined effort was to be made to stamp out the disease, I have given orders to my officers to he more active in the matter. I think that within the last month they must have reports coming in for close on to $20,000.


William Findlay Maclean: Is there any prospect of overcoming the disease ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I could not say that yet.


William Findlay Maclean: Is the payment of this large amount of money liable to be attended with any abuses in the way of claims ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I think not. I have been trying to guard against that. I do not know whether my hon. friend was in when I said that we only ordered the slaughter on the report of our permanent officers, and it is on their valuation of the animal that we pay, we do not allow outside valuation. That is the case with ail the animals slaughtered for which we give compensation. The veterinary who orders the slaughter fixes the value. Then the Act limits the amount of value which may be put upon an animal, so much for a thoroughbred, and less for a grade animal.


William Findlay Maclean: What is the average price paid for horses, on a two-thirds valuation ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I am told the payment lately has come to nearly $100 a piece.


William Findlay Maclean: That is a big price for a western horse. Could the hon. gentleman tell us what class of horse it is, is it an ordinary western horse that seems to be affected, or is it the progeny of horses that have been taken from the east ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: The horses that come into contact most frequently are the working horses, and in many cases these teams are worth a great deal more than we are allowed to pay compensation for. The horses that are running free we have not got at yet, to any extent.


William Findlay Maclean: You may have a great big proposition.
Mr. FISHER, It is a serious proposition, I grant.


Haughton Lennox: There is a possibility, it seems to me, that the minister may have to pay in cases that he does not contemplate. The Order in Council referred to, or a summary of it, provides, as the minister says, for compensation in the cases dealt with by subsection 2 of section 12 of the Animals Contagious Diseases Act, of 1903, as amended by chapter 6 of the statutes of 1904. Section 12 of Act of 1903 says :
The Governor in Council may order a compensation to be paid to owners of animals slaughtered under the provisions of this Act.
Of course the general provisions of this Act in that regard would be the preceding section 11 :
The minister may, from time to time, cause to be slaughtered animals suffering from infectious or contagious diseases, or suspected of being affected, and animals which are or have been infected by or in close proximity to a diseased animal or animals suspected of being affected by a contagious disease.
But if the minister will look at section 10, he will find that where the animal is offered for sale it may be seized by any inspector, and so on, who should report the seizure to the mayor, or reeve, or any justice of the peace having jurisdiction, and such mayor, reeve or justice of the peace may call in a veterinary to examine the animal. That is a summary of the clause. Of course it provides that the animal may be destroyed by the officer appointed by the minister, but it also provides that the animal may be destroyed on the order of the mayor, reeve or justice of the peace, on an examination which need not necessarily even be an examination made by one of the veterinaries appointed by the minister. I think that is pretty clear. I am not saying it is a very material point, but it does away with, or brakes in upon what the minister contemplates, that is, that he shall have through his officers complete control of the matter.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Section 12 gives the Governor in Council latitude of paying compensation or not, just as they liae.


Haughton Lennox: Certainly.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: The Order in Council only authorizes the payment of compensation when the slaughter has been ordered by an officer of the department ; consequently, I think that fear which the hon. gentleman has expressed in regard to the latitude allowed under section 10 would hardly come in.


Haughton Lennox: The hon. minister might possibly be able to carry it out in that way. It says' that the inspectors are authorized to slaughter, and then it says that the minister is authorized to order compensation to be *paid to the owners of animals which are slaughtered under the provisions of section 12 and the amendments thereto. Section 12 provides for compensation where an animal is slaughtered under the provisions of this Act. Section 10 provides for the slaughter of an animal in a way which is not contemplated by the Minister, and I am very far from saying that it would be just to deprive a person of compensation because his animal happened to be slaughtered by order of a justice of the peace or mayor or some one of that kind upon an inspection by a local officer when this provision is made in the Act. I think it embraces a larger class of cases than that which he has referred to.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I only referred to that to show that there is no danger.


Haughton Lennox: I hardly think it is a danger. I think it is right enough, but it extends farther than the hon. minister would have us understand.


Mr. TAYLOR.: I would like to ask the hon. minister if the veterinary surgeons who are employed in Manitoba at salaries amounting to $1,500 and expenses are employed the year round working exclusively for'the government, or are they carrying on their own business and doing what the government require of them ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: They are supposed to give all their time to our work and they are employed the year round.


John Herron: Does that apply to the veterinaries in the Territories ?
Mr. FISHER, In the Territories the work is done almost exclusively by officers of the mounted police, who work under my department in that respect. They are employed in their work as members of the mounted police and we make them a special allowance for the work they do for the Agricultural Department. But, I have some special officers in the Northwest and what I have stated applies to these. I would like to say that there is an officer in Winnipeg, Dr. Torrence, who is not paid by the year but who is paid

so much a day when he is employed. He does not give his whole time to our work.


Richard Blain: Would the hon. minister say who these officers report to and from whom they get their instructions ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: The chief veterinary officer, Dr. Rutherford.


George Taylor: Has the hon. minister gentlemen employed in Ontario in the same way ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Yes.


George Taylor: I see that we have here in Ottawa, G. W. Higginson. Is he in connection with the department ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Yes, he is paid. He is an officer giving his whole time to our work. I think that Dr. Higginson lives at Rockland. He is doing certain work there in that neighbourhood for us.


George Taylor: Then there is Mr. A. E. Moore.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Dr. Moore is a permanent officer who makes his headquarters here, hut who travels all over the provinces of Ontario and Quebec. He is one of our most valuable officers.


Mr. TAYLOR J. D.@: Whyte ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: He makes his headquarters tit Sherbrooke, Quebec, and works all along the frontier between Quebec and the United States in connection with the health of animals as well as travelling through the English speaking parts of Quebec.


George Taylor: I see in the Auditor General's Report the name of M. Philps, Chatham. He draws a salary of $50 ; his livery expenses amount to $48.50 ; pair of rubber boots $6 and travelling expenses $15.05. What does Mr. Philps do ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: He has been working in connection with the outbreaks of hog cholera. He requires rubber boots to go into the hogpens. We have to provide all our officers with rubber boots. They put on these boots to go into the hog pens and when they come out they take them off and wash them thoroughly so as not to carry infection. If they went into the hog-pens with leather boots the infection would be carried by them.


George Taylor: He gets a salary of $50 and his livery bill is $48 ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Quite -possibly.


Herbert Sylvester Clements: May I ask the hon. minister what information he has from Essex and Kent relative to the hog plague ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: My information is that it is lessening to some extent. I cannot speak more positively than that. This spring we have not had so many reports and we have not had so many deaths as we had last year.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: 


Herbert Sylvester Clements: May I ask the hon. minister if the officials who have been employed for the last four or five years are lessening in number ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I do not think I have taken off any of the officers yet. I hardly think the situation would justify me in doing so, but just as soon as it will justify it there will be a decrease.


Herbert Sylvester Clements: While I am thoroughly acquainted with the regulations regarding the hog plague there I may say that complaint is made that hogs are allowed to be taken from one township in which they have the disease and in which a quarantine has been ordered by a veterinary surgeon into another township where there is no disease perhaps ten miles distant. Is that a fact ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: No, that is not a fact unless the hogs are being taken to a packing house. We allow hogs to be shipped from a township which is quarantined because of the presence of disease to a packing house when they are fit for slaughter. Of course, this refers to animals that are free from disease. We do not allow them to be shipped to any other place, but we have a special provision allowing hogs to be shipped to a packing house on condition that they are immediately slaughtered. We had a good deal of difficulty in regard to that because people sold hogs which were not ready for slaughter and upon arriving at the slaughter house, finding that they were not fit for slaughter, they were resold to farmers in the neighbourhood. We traced innumerable outbreaks of hog cholera to that cause. We made a regulation providing that the hogs were to be immediately slaughtered and the packing house people were strictly enjoined against shipping them out or selling them alive. Since the enforcement of this restriction the number of outbreaks of hog cholera has materially decreased in the neighbourhood of slaughter houses.


Herbert Sylvester Clements: The disease has abated in my district to such an extent that we think the number of veterinary surgeons now employed to inspect these hogs is unnecessary. Instead of being veterinary surgeons they are hog inspectors who are employed to inspect the class of hogs that the hon. minister has spoken of and which are being sent to these factories. If a heavy fine were imposed upon these factories receiving these hogs for re-selling them, it would be a great saving to the country and the hon. minister would be able to reduce the number of officers who are drawing large salaries in my district amounting to $1,200 and $1,500 a year and expenses.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: We allow the hogs to be shipped provided they are healthy, and therefore they have to be inspected by some competent person who can say whether
*6713

they are healthy or not. The people there have been very urgent indeed in their request to us that we should give as much latitude as possible for the shipment of hogs. My hon. friend himself, I am sure, has had representations as to the stringency of the quarantine, and we have had similar representations from municipal authorities as well as from individuals. I have done everything I possibly could to make the quarantine as little irksome as possible. For that purpose I have retained inspectors with the view of enabling the people to ship out such hogs as they might, so that their feeding operations should not be interfered with more than was necessary in the public interest. I confess that the work is quite expensive, but it has been done in the interest of the people there, and I think it was justifiable, because those people make their living and derive the profits of their farms largely from the hogs they ship. AA'e have to continue the inspection for some time after the outbreak, because we cannot be sure that the disease will not reappear.


Herbert Sylvester Clements: I admit that it is a [DOT]difficult question, and the minister has my sympathy to some extent. He knows that my district is probably more heavily affected in this matter than any other in the Dominion. There are a great many complaints there, and I think they are quite justified. Where a farmer had only three or four hogs affected out of 100 or 150, it seemed wholly unnecessary to kill the whole herd. Owing to the way the farmers were treated by the inspectors, they simply evaded the law, and I do not believe there has been one farmer in a hundred in the last year or two who reported the disease to the inspectors at all. I believe there are a number of inspectors there who should be dismissed. These men . feel that they must do something for the money which the government is paying them; but it would be far better for the government to deal with the local inspectors, who, I think are more capable of taking care of the matter than the officials the government has there at present.


Peter Elson: I would ask the minister what progress is being made in stamping out sheep scab, which was found to exist three or four months ago in the province of Ontario?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I am afraid I cannot give my hon. friend much information on that subject. The officers of the department have been watching it and following up cases wherever they could find them. I have not heard of any particular report within the last two or three weeks. Before that a considerable number of cases were discovered. Aly hon. friend knows that it is a disease which we do not require to slaughter for. It can be cured by proper
treatment, and we impress that fact on the farmers. AVe have even gone so far as to send inspectors where we have heard of cases, and have given full instructions. AAre of course quarantine the affected flocks and have them thoroughly disinfected and cleaned. I think we have located every case; I do not think there is any case that we have not dealt with. In the spring, when the farmers shear their sheep, they are pretty sure to notice any symptoms of the disease, and every case that is discovered is treated. I do not think there is a flock infected in Ontario to-day which has not been attended to. More than that I cannot say.


Herbert Sylvester Clements: AAThat does the department term the hog disease that exists in my riding?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: AA'e generally call it hog cholera.


Herbert Sylvester Clements: Our veterinaries state that it is not hog cholera, but a certain plague. I may say that there are scores of farmers whose hogs have had this disease, but they have not reported it, and in a great many cases their hogs have got well. They have simply killed two or three which were sick, out of the flock, and the rest have got well. I think it is entirely unnecessary to kill the number of hogs which the officials of the department have demanded to be killed in the past.
Air. MAiCLAREN. In what section of Ontario does this sheep disease exist ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I do not think I ought to say that, because I should have to speak entirely from memory, and I might make a mistake.
Air. AVILLIAM AA'RIGHT. I would like to call the attention of the members of this House to the over lapping of authority between the Dominion government and the local governments in regard not only to diseases of animals, but to various agricultural matters. AVe have local government officials as well as Dominion officials dealing with the matters which we have been discussing tonight. That seems to be an unnecessary overlapping of duties, and some arrangement should be made to have the authority vested exclusively either in the Dominion or in the provinces. There may be good reasons why this work can be handled better by the Dominion government, but they have not become manifest to me yet from the discussion that has taken place or from anything that I have been able to read on the question. I think these matters could be better handled by the local governments, which already incur very large expenditures for these purposes. I think we ought to look into this question and see whether a reduction of the expense could not be made, either by a joint arrangement be-

tween the Minister of Agriculture of the Dominion and the Ministers of Agriculture of the various provinces, or by transferring the whole business to the Dominion or to the provinces. The position seems to be this, that any province that takes hold of this matter energetically, and stamps out disease in the province would only have for its pains the privilege of putting up its share of the expense, while other provinces would throw the responsibility entirely on the Dominion ; thus a premium would be put on the carelessness of those provinces. But if the Dominion undertakes the responsibility, it should handle the business exclusively. I would like to ask the minister whether any steps have been taken with a view to coming to an arrangement with the various provinces with regard to matters touching agriculture in general.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Of course, there is no line or organization which can prevent the passage of contagious diseases from one province to another. If one province is neglectful of these matters the other provinces will suffer. The constitution seems to allow provinces to pass laws relating to the health of animals, and also enjoins on the Dominion parliament to do this, too. We have passed certain laws. Those laws the provincial governments may enforce or not, just as they like. The provincial governments have power to pass laws also. In Ontario, for instance, there is quite a strong law [DOT]against glanders, but at the same time the provincial government have taken no active steps to enforce that law. Some years ago they did for a number of years, but they have not done anything recently, and one of the most expensive enforcements of that law was here in Ottawa, where we had, a year and a-half ago, to slaughter a large number of horses in this neighbourhood. The provincial government knew perfectly well that the disease was in existence. We [DOT]had another reason why it was difficult for a provincial government to do this. Some cases of the disease spread across the bridges here into Quebec, and we traced cases of glanders across the river and up into the lumber camps which had come straight from Ottawa, and the people there complained that this disease came straight from the province of Ontario. It was a matter which was not provincial, but interprovincial, and it seems that, under such circumstances, the provinces have a rather fair claim that the Dominion government should deal with these things. I confess that since I have been in office dealing with these things the work has grown a good deal. We have demands to do things, and, in view of the interests involved, I have tried to meet the demands as much as possible. That is one reason why the vote has increased, and I suppose that as the country increases and the industries increase, the people will demand more attention to their 1 Mr. W. WRIGHT.
interests, and we will have to give it as time goes on.


Richard Stuart Lake: I wish to ask the minister whether he has decided on a policy in regard to the retention or otherwise of the present quarantine ground near Estevan ? I understand a certain amount of that ground has been permitted to go into the hands of private individuals, which has broken up 'the block as it originally existed. The land is good arable land, and the citizens of Estevan, I think, are very anxious that it should be settled up. I think myself that considering that the land is already broken up in this manner, it would he a wise thing to move the quarantine ground a little further west, where good pasture can he obtained in a single block.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I am speaking a little from memory, but I know in the case of one or two of these grounds up there we have passed them over into the bands of the Interior Department for the purpose of settlement. I am not quite sure of the one at Estevan, but we have rather found out by experience that we do not need such large areas for quarantine purposes as we originally retained, and, unless I am mistaken, I think that ground, or a large portion of it, has been handed over to the Interior Department already. I shall look into the matter and let my hon. friend know.


Richard Blain: Where can we find the reports of these inspectors ? The minister stated that they report to the chief veterinarian for the Dominion. Do the officers in Ontario give a weekly or monthly report to him ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I do not think that there is any general report. When they find a case of disease they send in a special report of that case. These are not published, but they are on the files of the department, where any member of the House can s>e them. We do not undertake to publish them ; the report of the department simply gives the report of the chief veterinary inspector. Reports such as I spoke of a little while ago are reports of individual cases of disease.


Richard Blain: 1 understand the minister says that when a veterinarian goes out and finds a case of disease he make a special report to the head of the department here. These gentlemen are employed for the full year-365 days. There are a good many of them who scarcely find a case at all during the 365 days, and therefore no special report is made.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: My hon. friend is entirely mistaken in that. I do not suppose there is a week that every one of them does not send in something.


Richard Blain: Special eases ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Cases they have dealt with. We keep them busy ; I can assure my hon. friend they are all as busy as they can be.
Mr. BRAIN- 1 know they are busy. Some cf them have been very busy during the last election. My hon. friend beside me suggests that a large number of them are in London and North Oxford at the present time.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I do not .think so.


Richard Blain: I think these men are not overworked, to say the least of it, and that they should give a written report, so that the members of parliament and the country can understand just what they are doing. I could give some cases right at the .present moment of what some of these gentlemen are doing. I rather think they have a great deal of liberty. The minister shakes his head. That is all very well, but I know what I am talking about on this point.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Would my hon. friend give a special case ?


Richard Blain: The minister would like me to mention a case. If he would look over the large number of days in which they are not giving any report and ask them for a report of those days, I think he would find something that would be rather interesting, and that he would give them more work than they have been doing in the last three or four years. I think these men should give a weekly written report to the department, so that it would come under the inspection of the members of this House, in order that the country might fully understand that these gentlemen are at work and would not have too much leisure time to work on special cases.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I can assure my hon. friend that they have not much' leisure time. I have had to appoint extra officers every now and then, because there is more work thau the officers appointed can do. They make constant reports. I do not know that any of them make reports at definite times. There are sometimes two or three in a week, then perhaps not a report for a week and then another batch ; but there is a constant stream of reports ; there is constant communication with the central authorities here, both asking instructions and giving information. They do as much as my hon. friend suggests and, in many cases, more than that.


Richard Blain: Do these officers have passes on the railways ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I am told that three of them have. Three of them are especially engaged in supervision of the railroad traffic in animals. Dr. Orchard is the chief. He has a pass. He is the special inspector of cars which carry live stock, and he has a pass on all the railways. Mr. Peterson, while not a veterinary surgeon, is connected with the Department of Agriculture in Manitoba and represents the department in certain ways. He has a pass on the railways of Canada. Dr. Rutherford himself has one.


Richard Blain: I see in the Auditor General's Report that more than one of these officers gets $1,000 per year and expenses. What do those expenses include ? Do they include railway fares and living expenses while on the road ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: They include the disbursements they are obliged to make while on government business. They have to give details, which must pass the accountant of the department and then pass the Auditor General.


Richard Blain: A man could not make very extensive travelling for twelve months during the year on an expense account of about $200. I see one for $300 and some very much less. Compare that with the expenses of a commercial traveller, who gets $5 a day for travelling expenses, and you will see that these men cannot do much travelling and must be engaged in some other business.
Mr-FISHER. Some do work in the locality and have no railway travelling at all. Others travel more. We do not pay them so much a day like commercial travellers.


Richard Blain: If they are driving, you would have to pay their livery fare and their living expenses on the road. It is absolutely impossible that these men can be devoting their full time for the year when their travelling expenses are only $200 and some less. They cannot be engaged in very active work at that rate.


George Taylor: What are the duties of W. W. Starkey, of Brampton, which is in the constituency of my hon. friend from Peel (Mr. Blain).


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I think he is an inspector of cattle yards and sheds in Toronto.


Herbert Sylvester Clements: Some of these gentlemen were quite busy in my election last November. While I have every confidence in the head veterinary surgeon, I am not aware that any of his officials has ever prescribed for the hog cholera which is prevalent in my riding. If we are paying officials a salary for attending to these matters, they should be able to prescribe a remedy for that disease.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I do not know of any remedy for it.


William D. Staples: Up in the province of Manitoba during the last couple of years-we have sustained serious losses from the mange in horses. Is the department taking any action towards stamping it out 1 YY hen it gets among the horses it ' makes them weak and useless for their

work. A good many people keep using the horses thus afflicted, and there seems to be no restriction to prevent the disease spreading.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I was not aware there was any great spread of the disease in Manitoba. There is a good deal of it in the western ranching country, and we have been taking active steps to reduce it. We issued bulletins a while ago with instructions how to treat the horses so afflicted, and our officers in Manitoba have instructions to deal with it wherever they find it.


William D. Staples: I will give the hon. minister a list of certain districts where I know it exists.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I shall be very glad indeed to have it.


Mr.  M. S.@: 
Sydney Arthur Fisher: Part of it would go to the enforcement of that order.


Mr.  M. S.@: McCarthy. About how much ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I could not say. We discussed that a little while ago and I have no further information than I gave then. Dr. Rutherford is in the Northwest but the trouble with the mange is later in the season than now. I know of no new developments regarding it at present.


Mr. M. S. MCCARTHY.: I endeavoured to get the cost of enforcing the order last fall and the minister informed me that when the supplementary estimates would be down, he would be in a position to give the details.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I forgot about that but in the next supplementaries I will give the information.


Maitland Stewart McCarthy: I also asked the cost of the different tanks provided by the government at different points. I also asked when these vats were built and the approximate cost. I see that there were four.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I shall get that also. The expense of handling the whole matter came to about $17,000 but that does not include the cost of the tanks. These were put up out of an appropriation to public works for cattle quarantine. I will get the figures for my hon. friend.


Haughton Lennox: With regard to making the order in March apply to last September, if the minister will look at the Act carefully he will agree that in the amended Act of 1904 coupled with section 12 of the Act of 1903, it is optional with the Governor in Council to give compensation or not, but once compensation is given it can only be given in one way. The government can give compensation or not, but, if it gives compensation, it must give it in accordance Mr. STAPLES.
with the terms of the statute and cannot discriminate as between animals exhibiting a greater or less degree of disease. The minister pointed out-and it is very reasonable-that, in case of clinical sym-toms, the government did not contemplate paying under the Order in Council of last fall. But the Act, after providing that the minister can provide for the slaughter of animals to prevent the spread of contagious diseases, goes on to say :
The Governor in Council may order compensation to be paid to the owners of animals slaughtered under the provisions of this Act.
I need not read subsections 2 and 3, as they are repealed by the Act of 1904, and others substituted. Linder the subsections repealed there is a limit to the compensation to be paid, but under the new provision there is no limit except that it is to be two-thirds of the value of the animal before it became affected with infectious or contagious disease, or it came in contact with or in dangerous proximity to animals affected. Thus it is provided by the statute that the compensation should be a certain thing. I submit to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Fisher) and also to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) who has had a very long experience in the construction of statutes, that the government have the alternative of giving compensation or not giving it, but there is no discretion in the Governor in Council in the amount of compensation or the conditions under which it is to be given if any is given. Therefore, I would submit that you cannot legally or fairly discriminate as to cases arising between the Orders in Council of September, 1904, and the Order in Council of 1905. I am glad that it is so, because I believe it will be a good thing if the minister could see his way to remedy what will be to some extent a grievance-that these people in the west by reason of, I will not say the conflict, between the authorities, but of lack of adjustment between them, should fail to receive compensation in any way. I do not ask the minister to decide the matter now, but to look into it carefully. If he will turn to what I understand to be the embodiment of this Order in Council in this blue book and read the express provision there, I think he will be convinced that it is a fair reading of the provision that compensation should be made to these people that had animals slaughtered between September last and March last. I quote from page 173 of the report of the Minister of Agriculture, the latter part of paragraph 9 :
And the Minister of Agriculture is hereby authorized to order compensation to be paid to the owners of such animals at the rate set forth in subsection 2 of section 12 of the Animal Contagious Diseases Act, 1903, as amended by chapter 6 of the statutes of 1904.
That is, compensation should be made, if made at all, to the extent of two-thirds

of the value of the animal without discriminating as to whether the disease is ascertained by examination by the eye or by scientific test.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I am ready to look into the matter, because I should be glad if I am allowed to make compensation in any case of hardship.


William D. Staples: I am glad that the minister (Mr. Fisher) has agreed to look into the subject. The people of Manitoba only ask fair play in this matter. The people of the other provinces have been compensated since September and I do not see any reason why, especially as evidence can be brought to show that these animals were slaughtered on the certificate of a veterinary, the owners should not be compensated just as the owners of animals similarly slaughtered in other provinces have been.
Civil government-office of the Auditor General-
To provide for the salary of 1 chief clerk from June 1 to June 30, 1905, at $1,900 per annum	$ 158 33
Further amount required for clerical and other assistance	 3,000 00
Further amount required for printing
and stationery	 300 00
3,458 33


William Stevens Fielding: These are items which the Auditor General has asked for. The first is for the creation of an additional clerkship, and the others are for clerical and general assistance and stationery.
Administration of Justice-further amount required for miscellaneous expenses including Northwest Territories, $20,000.
Further amount required for travel of judges -Manitoba, $1,000.
Further amount required for travel of judges -Northwest Territories, $500.


William Stevens Fielding: The amount estimated for the year 1903-4 proved to be entirely too small, and accounts amounting to $16,000 had to be carried over and paid out of this year's appropriation. The increase is owing to the rapid increase of criminal business in the Northwest Territories, and that is also a consequence of the rapid increase in our population there which, with all its good qualities, has a few criminals.


Mr. URIAH WILSON.: I conclude that has something to do with the cost of the immigration which we have talked of in this House a good many times. We have not been careful enough to see that we got the proper class of immigrants. I hope that in future we will not require an increased vote for the administration of justice in the Northwest.
To provide salary of W. T. Archibald as Dominion parole officer, from May 1 to June 30, 1905, $333.33.


George Taylor: Who is this officer?


William Stevens Fielding: The Minister of Justice has appointed an officer to look after prisoners when they leave the penitentiary, and I think he renders the most useful kind of service possible. This is an officer of the Salvation Army, who has given a great deal of attention to that class of work, and the Minister of Justice is utilizing his services with great profit to all concerned.
Franchise Act-to complete cost of voters' lists for election of 1904, $10,000.
New addition of Electoral Atlas, $3,500.


William Stevens Fielding: I promised to get some further information, and I hope before the evening is through I will have my officer here who understands that item.


Uriah Wilson: How often are these printed and distributed? I know they have not been distributed so far as my riding is concerned, at least I have not received any.


William Stevens Fielding: I will have to allow the item to stand.-


George Taylor: While the minister is getting information, we want to know what benefit this new addition of the electoral atlas is.


William Stevens Fielding: That item was mentioned the other night. This electoral atlas is a series of maps of the various electoral districts of the country, and they have to be reprinted from time to time when changes are made by redistribution.


Uriah Wilson: Will the minister bring down information showing how often the voters' lists are printed?


William Stevens Fielding: I will ascertain that.
Payments for legal services re legislation respecting Sunday observance-R. U. McPherson, $1,362.04 ; J. A. Patterson, K.G., $96.35, $1,467.39.


William Stevens Fielding: These gentlemen are both barristers at Toronto, and the government have agreed to pay them for their legal services to the Dominion Lord's Day Alliance in having the question of Sunday observance raised in the Supreme Court. These gentlemen were employed by that organization to prepare a Bill for the observance of the Lord's day. They were heard before the members of the government on several occasions. Questions were raised as to the authority of parliament to pass the Act, as to whether it was within the jurisdiction of this parliament. Up to that time Sunday observance had been treated as a provincial matter, but the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in 1903 had decided that certain legislation of Ontario was ultra vires, and by reason of this decision the Dominion organization came to Ottawa for further legislation. The question of jurisdiction having been raised, a reference was made to the Supreme Court.


George Taylor: Is Mr. Patterson a partner of Senator Kerr, of the other House V


William Stevens Fielding: I have not the information on that point. I suppose any of my hon. friends can answer that question.


George Taylor: We will let the item pass, but will the hon. minister inquire?


William Stevens Fielding: If my hon. friend says that he needs the information I will promise to get it for him.


George Taylor: We need it.


William Stevens Fielding: Does he say that he does not know already?
Miscellaneous-tor legal expenses, $1,800.


George Taylor: In connection with what branch of the service?


William Stevens Fielding: These are for legal expenses incurred in the Finance Department partly in connection with the Martineau case and partly in connection with the prosecution of counterfeiters in Toronto.


Uriah Wilson: Who were the lawyers ?


William Stevens Fielding: The information was furnished me, but I cannot put my hand on it at the moment. We will let it stand.


George Taylor: Let it pass.
Miscellaneous-' Canada Gazette,' further amount required, $1,000.


William Stevens Fielding: This is due to the increased expense of the ' Canada Gazette.' The information I am furnished with is that the particular item which caused the additional expense is the publication of the railway tariffs which were published under the new Act. This caused some additional printing.


Uriah Wilson: How much was the main estimate?


William Stevens Fielding: $7,000. This is the cost of printing irrespective of the question of receipts.
Item allowed to stand.
Miscellaneous-printing-further amount required, $12,000.


William Stevens Fielding: This is due to the length of the session. It is to cover the extra expense of last year's printing which was very heavy, amounting to $14,000.


George Taylor: Is this in connection with the Printing Bureau or printing outside ?


William Stevens Fielding: It was all done at the Printing Bureau.


Robert Laird Borden: Why did the length
of the session make it greater? Would it cover the 'Hansard'?


William Stevens Fielding: No. this would not cover the ' Hansard.' * Hansard ' is a separate item.


William Stevens Fielding: 


George Taylor: What does it cover?


William Stevens Fielding: I would prefer that the item should stand as the information furnished is not complete enough. It says that it is due to the length of the session, but it does not show the particular branches for which this work has been done. A memorandum has been sent by the King's Printer, but I will get further information.
Item allowed to stand.
Miscellaneous-commutation in lieu of remission of duties on articles imported for the use of the army and navy-further amount required, $500.


Robert Laird Borden: What Iocs that really mean ? I do not object, to it but I would like to know what it means. I thought these things were imported without payment of duty.


Mr. PATERSON.: So they are and this is an amount that is the equivalent, I have not the particulars with me but I can get them.


Mr.   I@: I am not objecting to it, but I simply want to understand it. If these articles are imported without payment of duty why do you require any commutation?


William Paterson: Let the item stand.
Item allowed to stand.
Excise-contingencies-further amount required for travelling expenses, rent, fuel and stationery, &c., $3,000.


Mr. BERGERON.: What is the explanation of that?


Mr. BRODEUR.: This is required to enable the department to meet the expenditure from April to the end of the fiscal year. Fifty thousand dollars of a vote of $60,000 has been expended and as it is desirable that business should not be interfered with owing to lack of funds this $3,000 is required to make both ends meet.


Mr.   I@: You should not require a great deal more for fuel at this time of the year.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Not at this time of the year.
Civil government-Department of Public Works-to provide for payment of chief engineer at the rate of $3,500 per annum from December 1, 1901, to June 30, 1905, $58.33.


William Stevens Fielding: This officer's salary was increased from $3,400 to $3,500 and this accounts for the difference.
Public Works-capital-Quebec harbour improvements, $50,000.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: What is the cost of this work?


William Stevens Fielding: This !s the balance required for the close of the year on account of the construction of improvements hi the

liar born- of Quebec. The work is under contract to Messrs. Dussault and Lemieux.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: What is the matter with the Harbour Commission ?


William Stevens Fielding: This is outside the work of the Harbour Commission. The Harbour Commissioners have certain funds at their disposal, but this is independent of them.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: How do you manage the work in Quebec? Is the department doing some work specially outside of the work done by the Harbour Commission ?


William Stevens Fielding: Yes, whatever is done by the Harbour Commission has to be done out of the funds of the harbour board under the Harbour Commissioner's Act. This is a general expenditure out of the Dominion treasury.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: How do wre stand now with the Harbour Commissioners of Quebec ?


William Stevens Fielding: They have a balance at their disposal out of the present authorization of between .$300,000 and $400,000, and they have works in hand and contemplated which will take all of that and probably more ; but that is independent of the appropriations referred to in this item.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: Where does that $300,000 or $400,000 come from ?


William Stevens Fielding: Several years ago we consolidated the Acts respecting the harbour commission of Quebec, and any funds previously authorized which were not expended were carried into the new Act. There was a balance, if my memory serves me rightly, of $300,000 or $400,000. The Harbour Commissioners are undertaking works which will take all of that sum and probably more.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: How much do they owe the country now ?


William Stevens Fielding: A very large sum ; I cannot give it off-hand. A few years ago they issued bonds which have a certain priority over the government debt. There is a considerable debt, but it does not touch this item at all.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: No, but it touches the treasury of the country.


William Stevens Fielding: A good many harbours touch the treasury of the country.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: I think that is the worst.


William Stevens Fielding: Quebec is a very important harbour, and we must provide for Its development.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: Would it not be a good plan to abolish all these harbour commissions and have the harbours all put under the control of the Department of Public Works?


William Stevens Fielding: That is a large question as to which I cannot give my hon. friend an answer to-night.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: I see it stated in the newspapers that something is going to be done in that way in Montreal-that the harbour commission is going to be changed and the harbour put under the management of the Department of Marine and Fisheries. I do not know whether or not the newspapers are correct; but if that is done in Montreal, why should it not be done in Quebec and everywhere else?


William Stevens Fielding: It is not yet done in Montreal, and if we wait until it is proposed there my hon. friend's question will be much more in order. It is not connected with this vote.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: This vote of $50,000 is not to be spent by the harbour commissioners, but it is all public money, and I think it would be a very good thing if all these moneys which are now spent by commissioners were spent by a minister directly responsible to parliament.


Jean-Baptiste Morin: I would like to ask the minister whether the government intend to do anything in the port of Quebec to repair the wall which fell down last spring ? About 600 feet of the cross wall tumbled into the basin, and last week I was told that nothing had been done yet. A gentleman who was here from Quebec requested me to ask the government what they proposed to do. He said the present condition was a great injury to the trade of Quebec ?


William Stevens Fielding: That is a portion of the work which comes under the control of the harbour commissioners. I had an interview several days ago with gentlemen representing the harbour commissioners, who pointed out the necessity of the repairs to which my hon. friend has referred. It is contemplated that these repairs will be made as far as possible out of the funds which remain unexpended by the harbour commissioners. I think the carrying out of the work which the harbour commissioners desire to do will cost a considerable sum in excess of what is available in their hands ; but they are having plans made, and I understand that they will undertake very soon the repairs to which my hon. friend refers.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: Where Is this $50,000 to be spent ?


William Stevens Fielding: This is for the extension of what is known as the Quebec breakwater extending from the Louise embankment. That is under contract, and this is to pay the balance due to the contractors to the 30th of June.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: Who are the contractors ?


William Stevens Fielding: Dussault & Lemieux.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: What is the amount of their contract ?


William Stevens Fielding: 


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: When was that contract let ?


William Stevens Fielding: In 1903.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: And this amount is over the amount of the contract ?


William Stevens Fielding: No, it is the excess of what we expected would be required under their contract in the present fiscal year.
Mi* AMES. How much have they already received ail told on this contract ?


William Stevens Fielding: The amount to the 31st of December, 1904, was $107,692.86. The deputy informs me that the amount expended since wrouId probably amount to $50,000.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: When was that contract to be finished ?


William Stevens Fielding: It is to be finished during the coming fiscal year.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: If they have spent $107,000 out of a contract of $437,000, they have to spend over $300,000 this year.


William Stevens Fielding: Yes. The work was to be finished during the present year, but it is probable that they will not be able to finish it.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: Is that their fault, or what is the cause of it ? Who is supervising that work ?


William Stevens Fielding: An old engineer of the department stationed at Quebec named Valiquet. The work that has been done is very satisfactory. Apart from the fact that it has not gone on as rapidly as was expected, there is no complaint.


Uriah Wilson: What penalties do these contractors have to pay for not finishing their contracts In time ? When he is answering that I would like to know what competition there was for the work, when let, and how many tenders were received. I am afraid the minister has not the information to-night, that we ought to have on this matter. I would like to know how many tenders were received,what each tender was and who were the tenders and if this was the lowest.


William Stevens Fielding: All that I have no doubt has been before the House, but I shall gladly get it again, if my hon. friend wishes it, on the supplementary item.
Mr. URIAH "WILSON. Would the minister tell the penalty for nonfulfilment of the contract in time ?


William Stevens Fielding: The general penalty'is that when a contractor tenders he is obliged to put up a certain sum by way of security, Mr. FIELDING.
and if he does not go on, that will be forfeited. What else can be done ?


Uriah Wilson: I would suggest that tenders might have penalties attached that unless the contract is fulfilled the contractor will have to pay so much a day as damages. I think this is sometimes in contracts and I think it might very reasonably be put in because I d<>
not see any reason why a man should contract to do a work and not have it done unless he can give better reasons than those generally given for not completing it in time. Apparently this contract is not half done yet.


William Stevens Fielding: As respects the adoption of a new plan in dealing with contracts that is a wide matter and while glad to have the hon. member's suggestions I would not undertake to assent to his proposition tonight. The department is acting in the light of long experience, and I have no doubt the officials take every precaution open to them. It is sometimes found necessary to extend the time of contracts.


Uriah Wilson: Is one-half the work done ?


William Stevens Fielding: According to these figures, no. Only $150,000 out of $400,000 and odd has been expended so that is less than one-half.


Uriah Wilson: That is not very
satisfactory is it ?


William Stevens Fielding: The deputy minister informs me that the latter part of the work is apt to be done more rapidly. There is always time lost in commencing the work, in gathering plant, &c., so that although less than one-half has been done now that does not show that the work will not be completed within the time specified.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: How many tenders were there and what is the amount of each tender ? -


William Stevens Fielding: The deputy, speaking from memory, says there were six tenders and this was the lowest.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: Can we not have the name ?


William Stevens Fielding: Yes, but I have not them now. I have no doubt all the information on this has already been given, but I do not say that is a reason why we should not give it again. When the main estimate was taken in all probability it was discussed as the matter has been running for several years.


George Taylor: Has the main estimate for this year been taken ?


William Stevens Fielding: No ; it would be discussed in the last year or the year before. I would suggest that as this is a contract and has to be paid, we might pass this item,

and when on the main estimates ail this information might be brought down.


Mr. AMES.: Will the minister be prepared when the main estimates are voted to answer the question of the hon. member for Lennox, as to whether there are in the contract any penalties for failure to fulfil the contract within a specified time.


William Stevens Fielding: Certainly I shall be very glad to bring down the contract.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: There is an exploratory voyage in Hudson bay under the superintendence of the government, and a number of the men employed on the steamer which has gone there have left orders for the payment of their salary during their absence. These salaries are not being paid because the vote of last year, as I understand, has been exhausted. Have any steps been taken to pass the necessary supplementary item in order that these arrears of salary may be settled? X ask this because a number of" these men's families are in want at the present"moment and I think that the supplementary estimate is really a pressing matter.


William Stevens Fielding: Yes, it is included in an item which was passsed on Friday night and as soon as we complete the various votes we will have a special supply Bill to cover all these cases and to meet payments of this nature ?


George Taylor: We will allow this to pass and have the discussion on the main estimate.


William Stevens Fielding: Certainly that is fair.
Harbours and rivers-Ontario, $26,000.


George Taylor: We shall have to ask this item to stand.


William Humphrey Bennett: Before it is dropped may I ask how many tenders were received for the dredging at Fort William aud Tort Arthur and who were the tenderers ?


William Stevens Fielding: Nine tenders were received for the Port Arthur dredging.


William Humphrey Bennett: And the names, jilease.


Mr. FIELDING A. F.@: Bowman, Southampton ; John H. Hickler, and Neil Macdonald, Sault Ste. Marie ; the Great Lakes Dredging Company, Limited, Port Arthur ; C. S. Boone, Toronto ; Wm. Davis & Sons, Ottawa, the Port Arthur Dredging & Harbour Improvement Company, Port Arthur ; Roger Miller, Ingersoll, and M. J. Haney, Toronto.


William Humphrey Bennett: Whose tender was accepted ?


Mr. FIELDING A. F.@: Bowman was the most favourable.


William Humphrey Bennett: And the rate ?
Mi*. FIELDING. The rate was 14 cents per cubic yard of clay.


William Humphrey Bennett: Has the minister any objection to giving the rates of the other tenderers ?


William Stevens Fielding: The contract is not signed although it is awarded. I would prefer the hon. gentleman to renew the question several days later. The question is a proper one, but we prefer not to make this public until the contract is signed.


William Humphrey Bennett: And the Fort William names, please ?


William Stevens Fielding: The tenderers are the same, with the addition of James Morphy, Lewis Walsh, and John King, Fort William.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: To whom was this one awarded, for Fort William ?


William Stevens Fielding: To Mr. Bowman, at 12 cents per cubic yard.


William Humphrey Bennett: Has the contract been signed ?


William Stevens Fielding: The contracts are being prepared in the department but have not been signed.


William Humphrey Bennett: Has any valuation been made of the Collingwood dry dock, if so by whom and what was the amount at which it was figured for the purpose of getting the bounty ?


William Stevens Fielding: The valuation made by Mr. Louis Coste was $540,000 or a little over.


William Humphrey Bennett: Has a year elapsed since the official valuation was made, and what time will the bounty be payable ?


William Stevens Fielding: A year has not elapsed.


Herbert Brown Ames: When item 65 comes up again will the hon. minister lay on the table copies of the ten offers that were made, and also a copy of the specification ?


William Stevens Fielding: If the contract has in the meantime been executed and the transaction complete, there is no objection to bringing down all the tenders, but the practice is not to make the details public while the matter is pending. In a few days the whole transaction will be completed by the execution of the contract; and if not brought down on this estimate, we have no objection to bringing the information down on the main estimates, which are yet to be dealt with.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: Was the contract given to the lowest tenderer ?


William Stevens Fielding: Yes, in both cases.
Public buildings in Richibucto, New Brunswick, $1,600.


William Stevens Fielding: This is to pay the balance due the contractor for fittings, &c. A part of this was paid from the general appropriation temporarily and a special vote -is required to provide for the same. The



total amount of the contract for the fittings is $2,000, and the total amount expended on the building and fittings up to the 31st December, 1904, was $17,343.23. That expenditure includes, not only the building, but the electric lights, electric boxes, boiler, heating apparatus, and so forth. The contract for the building itself was $9,716.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: Were tenders called for ?


William Stevens Fielding: The heating apparatus was contracted for separately by Mr. F. Powers, of Lunenburg, and it amounted to $799. Mr. Reid, the contractor, was asked to give an offer for the fittings, and he received $2,000.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: How many tenders were offered ?


William Stevens Fielding: There were four for the building itself.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: The building cost $9,000 and the fittings almost as much more.


William Stevens Fielding: In the $17,000 is included the purchase of the site, which was bought from Phinney & Steeve, Richibucto, at $800.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: What was the size of the lot ?


William Stevens Fielding: 230 feet by 416 feet- very nearly two acres.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: Who acted for the department in making the purchase ?


William Stevens Fielding: The department sent down an officer to examine the site and inquire from local people the value.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: Is there an officer of the department who goes there in the public interest, or was it a favour to some friend of the government ?


William Stevens Fielding: The practice is that, when this place is not at too a great a distance from Ottawa, the chief architect sends an officer from the department. But when it is deemed not neeessary to do that, they employ a local officer of the Department of Public Works. This local officer collects the opinions of these who are well informed as to the fair value of the land.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: Tenders were not asked for, I imagine, until the government had bought the site, or, at least, knew what it would cost. So, they had $800 for the site and $9,000 for the contract. But there is a big difference between that and $17,000, which is the total cost.


William Stevens Fielding: The hon. gentleman has forgotten what I said. The contract was not for $9,000 but for $9,800. There is nearly $1,000 accounted for. Then there were some extras on the contract. Then, there is $800 for lighting and $700 for heat-Mr. FIELDING.
ing apparatus. Then you have the fittings and so on.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: But that is still far from $17,000.


George Taylor: I suppose the minister has before him the items making up the total ?


William Stevens Fielding: I think I ought to have, but I am sorry to say I have not. If any hon. gentleman would rather have the details, I am quite willing that the item should stand over until the statement is prepared.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: I think it would be better.


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER.: The item stands.
Public Works-chargeable to income-public buildings-Ontario, London drill hall and armoury-electric wiring and fixtures, grading sidewalks, &e., $6,000.


William Stevens Fielding: There was a contract for the electric wiring amounting to $4,750 of .which the contractors have received $950, leaving a balance of $3,S00. There is due on granolithic walks $750, grading of the site $250, balance on architect's commission $376, incidentals $204 and other items up in round figures $6,000.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: What has it all cost ?


William Stevens Fielding: The total cost to March 1st, 1905, is $193,944.07.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: What is the amount of the contract ?


William Stevens Fielding: The contract was for $133,897.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: What was that to. cover ?


William Stevens Fielding: For the building as ordinarily understood. They are extras as ' set forth in the list I have before me.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: There is a difference there of $60,000 over the original contract.


William Stevens Fielding: But then the total cost includes site, fittings, kerbs, levelling and other things of that kind which are not part of the building but which must be paid for.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: But the point is this -the government comes to parliament and we are supposed to vote the money required for a building as they explain it to us. But we find afterwards that there are extras or incidentals that bring it up to a much larger figure.


William Stevens Fielding: I have the items set forth here, if any hon. gentleman wishes to hear them.
Mr. TAYeOR. I understand the minister to say that this work is all completed. Why should the work be done before the money is voted ?


William Stevens Fielding: The chief architect says that the work is practically completed. There may be some of the outside work going on.
(Mr. BERGERON. According to the figures the minister gave there is a sum due their architect. What is that for ?


William Stevens Fielding: That is for the superintending architect employed to supervise the work ; that is, in lieu of the clerk of works.


George Taylor: But why should the government go and build granolithic walks and all that kind of thing before the money is voted and only after the work is done, come to parliament for the money ?


William Stevens Fielding: As Minister of Finance I join heartily with my hon. friend in the view he expresses. But, as acting Minister of Public Works, I may have to take a different view.


Samuel Hughes: What was the original estimate for this work ?


William Stevens Fielding: The original estimate was $15,000 for the building, including, heating and lighting, and the cost has been $158,000.


Samuel Hughes: How about the contract ?


William Stevens Fielding: These are for outside work and also for the site which cost $27,000.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: Was not a site belonging to the government used for this building ?


William Stevens Fielding: No, it was a new purchase.
Mr. BERGERoN. From whom ?


William Stevens Fielding: There were a number of lots purchased from various people.


Samuel Hughes: This is not on the site of the old building, is it ?


William Stevens Fielding: An entirely new site.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: Wasn't there a drill hall there before ?


William Stevens Fielding: Not on this site.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: What has become of the site of the old building ?


William Stevens Fielding: This is erected on a separate site that had to be purchased at a cost of $27,000, including legal expenses.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: What has become of the old site ?


William Stevens Fielding: It is still there ; I can guarantee that it has not been carried away. I do not know whether it has been sold or not. There are some old buildings on the site that have been sold.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: Can the hon. gentleman bring down the information about that?


William Stevens Fielding: I will.
214}	'


Samuel Hughes: Can the minister tell us what is the accommodation in this drill shed, what forces can it accommodate?


William Stevens Fielding: The main drill hall is 80 feet by 195. There are in connection with it eight armouries, a gun-shed, three harness rooms, several rooms for officers, band room, lecture room, room for army medical and army service corps, sergeants' mess, quartermaster's stores, bowling alley, lavatory, bathroom, room for caretaker. It is a very large and spacious place.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: Is the government building a bowling alley ?


William Stevens Fielding: That is not an unusual thing in drill halls.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: Is the government keeping it up ?


William Stevens Fielding: So far as the maintenance of the building is concerned, the government will keep it up. I do not know who will provide the balls.
Grosse Isle quarantine station-improvements and repairs, supplies, &c., $8,000.


William Stevens Fielding: These Improvements include overhauling and renovating the steamer ' Challenger,' that is a part of the quarantine apparatus.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: We voted some time ago an amount of .money for that same purpose.


William Stevens Fielding: That was in the main estimate ; this is to wind up the affairs of the current year. The expenditures at Grosse Isle are under the supervision of the Public Works Office at Quebec.
Northwest Territories-Lloydminster immigrant building (revote of lapsed amount) $2,500.


Samuel Hughes: What has been done at Lloydminster ?


William Stevens Fielding: This building was commenced in 1903-4 by the Department of the Interior ; the total expenditure has been $20,246. This sum will finish it. The vote of last year was allowed to lapse. This building was begun by the Department of the Interior and is now finished. It is charged to public works.


Uriah Wilson: Is it for immigration purposes ?


William Stevens Fielding: Yes, and the militia building is for drill purposes; but it is charged to public works. That department is the builder for all departments.


Samuel Hughes: This building is also used for police purposes, is it not ?


William Stevens Fielding: The department are not aware, but it would he, I presume, used for any Dominion purpose.


Samuel Hughes: They should put a fence around it and make it look a little
COMMONS [DOT]
neater. Thirty thousand dollars is altogether too much for a building of that kind, but things were done at that time with a rush.


Uriah Wilson: What material is it built of?


Samuel Hughes: Wood.
Public Works-income-British Columbia- Dominion public buildings-improvements, renewals, repairs, &c., $3,000.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: Do we require to have these general votes all the time ?


William Stevens Fielding: Yes.
Some resolutions reported.
Mr. FIELDING moved the adjournment of the House.


George Taylor: Before the adjournment will the hon. Minister of Finance state what business will be taken up to-morrow?


William Stevens Fielding: The motion for supply will be made to-morrow.


George Taylor: No autonomy Bill tomorrow ?


William Stevens Fielding: I think not to-morrow.


George Taylor: I thought we were promised that to-day or to-morrow for certain.


William Stevens Fielding: By whom?


George Taylor: When it was left over last week.


William Stevens Fielding: I do not know whether there has been any understanding between my right hon. friend the Prime Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) and the hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. R. L. Borden), but it will be subject to what the Prime Minister may say to-morrow. He did not intimate when he went away that it would come up.


George Taylor: I think there was a general understanding that it would be taken up Monday or Tuesday.


William Stevens Fielding: I will have to ask the hon. gentleman to reserve that question until the Prime Minister is present.


George Taylor: Then, it will be estimates.


William Stevens Fielding: Yes, estimates.


George Taylor: Public Works ?


William Stevens Fielding: Yes, I think so.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, House adjourned at 10.50 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Tuesday, May 30, 1905.