1905-02-24

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 74) respecting the Medicine Hat and Northern Alberta Railway Company.- Mr. P. Talbot by Mr. Parmelee.
Bill (No. 76) respecting the Red Deer Valley and Coal Company.-Mr. Campbell.
Bill (No. 77) respecting the Canadian Agency.-Mr. Bickerdike by Mr. Campbell.
Bill (No. 78) respecting the Macleod, Card-stone and Montana Railway Company.- Mr. Turriff by Mr. Campbell.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. PARMELEE moved for leave to introduce Bill (No. 75) respecting the Battle-ford and Lake Lenore Railway Company.
Mr. HENDERSON.: I would like the hon. gentleman to explain that Bill. I do not know if it is a new Bill or an extension. I have a suspicion that it is extending a very bad Bill.


Mr. PARMELEE.: I think it simply asks the construction.


David Henderson: I think we are entitled to the explanation.


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

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 79) respecting the Toronto, Hamilton and Buffalo Railway Company.-Mr. Zimmerman-by Mr. A. Johnston.
Bill (No. 80) to incorporate the Woodstock and Lake Huron Railway Company.-Mr. A. H. Clarke.
Bill (No. 81) respecting the Ottawa River Railway Company, and to change its name to the Central Trunk Railway Company.- Mr. Pichfi.

Mr. FOSTER.: Before the Orders of the Day are called, I would like to ask the First Minister as to the cause of the delay in printing of the Autonomy Bill.


Sir WILFRID LAURIER.: I think there has been no delay so far. I am just as anxious as my hon. friend is to have the Bill printed immediately and to take it up as soon as possible. I expect to have it at the latest on Tuesday.


Mr. FITZPATRICK.: I ought to say that I am responsible for some of the delay that has occurred. In consequence of an error Sir WILLIAM MULOCK.
in the description of the boundaries of the provinces, I had to get that corrected, which I did as soon as the Bill was in the hands of the Clerk of the House, and I returned it to him yesterday afternoon.



MANITOBA ELECTION RETURNS.

George Eulas Foster: Has the First Minister had an opportunity to look into the question which I put to him yesterday as to the Manitoba election returns ?


Wilfrid Laurier: I speak subject to correction, but I believe I am right, when I say that all these returns are in the hands of the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery, who is an officer of this House, and it seems to me that the procedure would be to have a motion made for his attendance here. I have been waiting for my hon. friend the leader of the opposition to return in order that I might confer with him on that point.] I can see no objection to that.



CONTRACTS FOR GOVERNMENT WORKS.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. CHARLES FITZPATRICK (Minister of Justice) moved second reading of Bill (No. 51) respecting contracts for government works.
Motion agreed to, Bill read the second time and House went into committee thereon.
On section 1-tenders to be invited ; exceptions ; contracts to be awarded by the Governor in Council-
Charles Fitzpatrick: The first clause practically re-enacts the law as we have it now ; that is to say, it provides that the minister shall invite tenders for all works of which the estimated cost exceeds $5,000, the exceptions being those works which are of immediate and urgent necessity and those of which the estimated cost does not exceed $5,000. The new feature is the second paragraph, which provides that all contracts let by tender are to be let, not by the minister directly, but by the minister under the control and with the approval of the Governor in Council. Having looked into the law, I found it necessary to make this change. As a matter of fact, contracts for works costing less than $5,000 have been let without tender, but there has been no legislative sanction for that. I am making this change so as to provide for the full approval of council to every contract that is made.


Mr. HAGGART.: As the laws stands, I understand that all contracts must be let by tender.


Charles Fitzpatrick: The law as contained in 31 Victoria, chapter 12, section 20, re-enacted in the Revised Statutes as chapter 36, section 13 provides that all contracts shall be let by tender except works of im-

mediate and urgent necessity ; but in 1880 an Order in Council was passed authorizing the letting of contracts without tender in which the amount involved did not exceed $5,000. When X became Minister of Justice, on looking into the matter, I found that there was no authority for such an Order in Council, and I thought it advisable to get statutory authority for the practice. The only change is in the second paragraph, which provides for the approval of the Governor in Council.


John Graham Haggart: It is exactly as I understood. I understood that the law in the past, except so far as modified by Order in Council, was that all works should be let by tender. The Bill is to legalize what has been done, and it is a very proper provision, with regard to some departments at any rate, that all contracts should be submitted to the Governor in Council.
Mr* INGRAM. How will this affect public works which were started three or four years ago and on which large sums of money have been spent, not by contract but by day's labour?


Charles Fitzpatrick: Any works of that kind can be carried on.


Mr. INGRAM.: In my constituency several thousand dollars have been spent by day's work on a harbour ; and I do not know whether the government intend to continue the work by day's work or by contract, or whether this Bill will affect that work.


David Henderson: I do not understand that this Bill will affect a work of that kind at all, because it applies only to works under contract. The fact is, the government can spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on public works by private arrangement, by simply doing the work by day's work. The law does not prevent them. It only limits the powers of the government when they decide to do work by contract.


Andrew B. Ingram: I was under the impression that any public work costing over $5,000 had to be done by contract.
Bill reported.


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


David Henderson: To-morrow.


Wilfrid Laurier: To-morrow.



RAILWAYS AND CANALS.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 53) to amend the Act respecting the Department of Railways and Canals, (Mr. Emmerson) read the second time and the House went into committee.
On section 1,
1. Section 11 of the Act respecting the Department of Railways and Canals, being chapter 37 of the Revised Stautes, is repealed and the following is substituted therefor :-
11. The minister shall invite tenders, by public advertisement, for the execution of all works, except in cases of pressing emergency in which delay would be injurious to the public interest, or in cases in which, from the nature of the work, it can be more expeditiously and economically executed by the officers and servants of the department, or in cases where the estimated cost' of the work is less than $5,000, and it appears to the minister, in view of the nature of the work, that it is not advisable to invite tenders.
2. Whenever, in the case of any work, tenders are required to be, or are, invited, the minister shall submit all tenders received therefor to the Governor in Council, and the contract for the work shall be awarded under the direction of the Governor in Council.
Mr. EMMERSON.: The terms are precisely those of the Bill which my hon. friend the Minister of Justice has just explained.


Mr. SPROULE.: What are we to understand by the term ' the officers and servants of the department'? Would that cover any number of men the department might employ to do a certain work ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: That would be the officers of the department, the regular employees of the department.


John Graham Haggart: What are officers or servants of the department ? If this clause gives the minister the privilege of employing any number of men he pleases to do any particular work, it does away with the Act altogether.


Charles Fitzpatrick: These words are taken from the old Public Works Act, 31 Vic., and I really do not know the meaning put upon them by the different governments. Strictly and literally they would mean all those who are in the pay of the department.


John Graham Haggart: It ought to be limited to officers and servants who are permanently in the employ of the government. For the purpose of building a dam you might utilize day labourers who are idle part of the season, and in some cases that would be more economical, but the wording is such that it will allow the minister to dispense with a contract in every case.


Charles Fitzpatrick: As these words occur in the first Bill, for which I am responsible, and the third reading of which has been held over, I will inquire and see how far we can limit the terms of the Bill.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Your engineers are officers and servants of the department. They might hire 100 or 1,000 men to do a work. Does that term include such men as the engineers may employ ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: It would not do to confine it to the permanent officials. The main point of this is to meet cases of pressing emergencies. Take for instance the work on the Welland canal. We do not keep a permanent electrician there and consequently

we require to employ, from time to time, expert electricians to meet emergencies. If you were to limit us to the employment of permanent officials you would make it impossible for the department to secure the services of an expert who in cases where there was no permanent official, could be employed.


John Graham Haggart: There is no limitation in the case of an emergency. You can employ then as many men as you like.


Mr. TISDALE.: What is the change between the old law and the present ?


Charles Fitzpatrick: It consists in this. Formerly when an appropriation was made by parliament, tenders were invited for the work, and the minister let the contract himself without going to Council at all. The intention of the amendment is merely to make it incumbent on the minister to go to Council with his contract so that it may receive the sanction of Council before it is finally awarded. I am not dealing with the question raised by my hon. friend from East Grey (Mr. Sproule) as to the meaning of the words in my Bill, but, with the meaning of the words in the original law relating to works to be executed by the officers and servants of the department. My judgment would be that the words are somewhat elastic and I suggested a moment ago, in answer to my hon. friend from Lanark (Hon. Mr. Haggart) that the matter might be left over for consideration when the Bill is up for third reading. In the meantime, I might inquire what has been the practice in the past and what has been the construction put upon these words during the time the law has been in force, that is, since confederation. I think this is largely a question of usage and of the construction put upon the words by parliament, and we shall be able better to express it when it comes up for third reading.


David Tisdale: In both Bills ?


Charles Fitzpatrick: My hon. friend (Mr. Tisdale) was not here when the Bills were introduced. There are three Bills. One has reference to contracts for government works. That stands in my name. It is a Bill of general application to be observed with respect to all government works. The next Bill is one to make the Act respecting railways conform with the General Act I have mentioned. I have amended the Act respecting railways and using practically the same terms as in the other. Then there is a Bill to make the Public Works Act conform with the General Act. The effect is the same in all-to compel the ministers to come to Council to get authority to let a contract.


George Eulas Foster: Will the hon. miniate: read the clause in the old Act which was repealed-section 11 of chapter 37 of the '


Henry Robert Emmerson: Revised Statutes. We have not that before us.


John Graham Haggart: Here is the clause :
The minister shall invite tenders by public advertisement for the execution of all works, except in cases of pressing emergency-


Charles Fitzpatrick: That simply reproduces the other.


Henry Robert Emmerson: That was amended subsequently.


Charles Fitzpatrick: I have the amendment here :
The minister shall invite tenders by public advertisement for the execution of all works, except in cases of pressing emergency, in which delay would be injurious to the public interest, or in cases in which, from the nature of the work, it can be more expeditiously and economically executed by the officers and servants of the department-
Then, the change comes in here :

or in cases where the estimated cost is
less than $5,000, and it appears to the minister, in view of the nature of the work, that it is not advisable to invite tenders.
That was the amendment of 3 Edward VII, chapter 52.


David Henderson: Who will decide whether the matter is one of pressing emergency or not, or whether the work can or cannot be more economically executed by the officers and servants of the department, or, according to the third exception, whether it is or is not advisable to invite tenders.


Charles Fitzpatrick: The minister has been made the absolute judge since confederation. There has never been any change.


George Eulas Foster: My hon. friend from South Lanark (Mr. Haggart) has read section 11 of chapter 37, respecting the Department of Railways and Canals, and that is the one that, by this is repealed ?


Charles Fitzpatrick: Yes.


George Eulas Foster: And, that at present is the law of the land ?


David Tisdale: So far as railways and canals are concerned.


Henry Robert Emmerson: It is amended.


George Eulas Foster: There is nothing cited here as amended, and chapter 37 of the Revised Statutes must be the legislation on that subject, so far as the Department of Railways and Canals is concerned. That section allows works to be done without tender for any of three causes. The first is where the estimated cost is less than $5,000, and it appears to the minister, in view of the nature of the work that it is not advisable to invite tenders. Now, am I right in that respect ? If so this seems to

me a change which it is not advisable to make. There is a multiplicity of small works in the Department of Railways and Canals. If an analysis were made of the work, carried on by this department, I believe that the works costing under $5,000 would be a very large proportion of the construction work done under that department. Any one conversant with the railway system knows how many of its new buildings and that sort of thing along the railway come within a cost of $5,000. This would allow the minister to do that sort of work as he pleases, without inviting tenders. And that will result in the work being given to interested persons. It will practically shut out any competition in all that class of work, and I do not think it is healthy or right to shut out that competition. If there is a station house to be built along the line of the Intercolonial, the mere fact that it will not cost more than $5,000 is no reason why we should not have healthy competition in the building of that station. And what is true with reference to such a station is true with reference to a very large class of works under the value of $5,000 in this department. Now, parliament adopts this amendment, and it will become the rule that all that class of work will go out without tender. What is the advantage of tender ? It is that you may curb unnecessary expense and secure competition, it is that money of the country should be expended as economically as possible. In the case of practically every one of these works there might be competition, and the effect of that competition would be to keep down the cost of construction. If there is any virtue in the tender system and in the economical administration of the public moneys, I think we ignore or deny that principle By this legislation. I am not in favour of extending this to the Department of Railways and Canals or the Department of Public Works. As to the other two cases, the first is ' except in cases of pressing emergency in which delay would be injurious to the public interest.' That, I think is all right and must be in the Bill. That is to prevent injury to the public interest in certain eases. As my hon. friend pointed out, this is absolute. Then there is the third case, ' in which, from the nature of the work, it can be more expeditiously and economically executed by the officers and servants of the department.'
That is in the decision of the minister, 1 suppose, as to whether' it can so be done. But as the clause stands, he cannot do it in the case of a $5,000 expenditure, and under the arrangements, unless he does it by his officers and servants. There would be no reason for putting that in as a second case at all unless it were contemplated that these officers and servants should be the officers and servants at the time* in pay of the department; otherwise it would all come in under the third case, the $5,000 expenditure, where it appears to the minister, in view of the nature or the work, that it is not advisable to invite tenders. Now, if the contention of the Minister of Railways is allowed that he can take one of his servants and make him superintendent of the job and employ help outside the employees of the department, why, that becomes as wide as it can become. I think it is dangerous and uneconomical.


Charles Fitzpatrick: As I said some time ago, we are dealing with three different chapters of me Revised Statutes. We are dealing with the chapter which has reference to the control of government work, that was a Bill I had myself in my own name; then we are dealing with the chapter which has reference to the Public Works Act, and in addition to that, we are dealing with the chapter which has reference to government railways. That is the Bill we are now dealing with. Row, with respect to government works generally, provision was made that all public works should be let by tender, that was the original provision, with two exceptions: The first was with respect to works of an immediate and urgent necessity, and the next exception was in so far as the work was carried on by the servants of the department-I forget the exact words. Now, under the law as it stood an Order in Council was passed authorizing the minister to deal with a work in which the amount involved does not exceed $5,000 without inviting tenders. That Order in Council was passed in 1880 or 1881. Finding that there was no legislative authority for that Order in Council, 1 deemed it advisable to amend the law accordingly, and I did amend it some two sessions ago, but only with respect to public works, not with respect to the Department of Railways and Canals. Therefore, it is necessary now to amend the law with respect to tfie Department of Railways and Canals so as to make it conform with the Order in Council, and also with the general provisions applicable to the Public Works Act. The amendment was made with respect to the Public Works Act two years ago by 3 Edward VII., chapter 52, and the intention is to make that principle, which was then made applicable to the Public Works, now applicable to the Railways and Canals.


John Graham Haggart: There is no limitation in case of emergency ?


Charles Fitzpatrick: No.


George Eulas Foster: Then what seems to be necessary under that, would be to define the term ' servant and officers,' and that the minister will take into consideration before the third reading.


Charles Fitzpatrick: I thought I would inauire as to what the practice has been in

the past, not the practice of recent years, but since the Act has been in force, so as to find out how far we can make an amendment which will conform to the practice itself. '


George Eulas Foster: I would rather see the Order in Council abolished.


Charles Fitzpatrick: It never had any
existence in law.


John Graham Haggart: If I remember rightly, cases of emergency, by the rules and regulations, are decided by Council.


Charles Fitzpatrick: No, by the minister. My hon. friend has the experience of a min-inster in that department, whereas I have not, but I think he will find that the practice has been that the minister decided.
Bill reported.



SECOND READING.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 54) to amend the Public Works Act.

Mr. Hyman.

[Stage Direction]
House in Committee of Supply.
Excise-salaries of officers and inspectors of excise, &e., to provide for increases depending upon the result of excise examinations, $390,-718.75.v
['I do not think it is competent for us to take over any provincial railway and destroy any rights the province\nhas in it by saying that it is for the general advantage of Canada. That is a question of law to be determined ultimately by the courts. We have had that question before this House again and again, and there seem to be no decisions that touch directly upon it. We may be within our rights or we may not. If we are within our rights, we may be interfering with the rights that properly belonged to the province when it originally granted the charter for this railway.\nBill reported.']
Hon. L. P. BRODEUR (Minister of Inland Revenue).: There is an increase of $16,156.25, made up as follows:
Increase. Decrease.
Inspectors	$	200 00Collectors	
1,088	75Deputy collectors, class ' A ' 1,088 75 Deputy collectors, class 'B' 1,820 00 Special class, excisemen.. .. 1,550 00 First-class excisemen.. .. 10,100 00 Second-class excisemen.. ..	3,017	50Probationary class	
2,000	00
Accountants and bookkeepers 490 00 Stenographers and typewriters 20 OU
Third-class excisemen	 $5,380 00
Messengers	 780 00
The aggregate amount of the increases is $22,316.25 and the aggregate amount of the decreases $6,160, leaving a balance of $16,156.25. I may say that most of these increases are in accordance with the law and the regulations of the department. The case of the inspectors, for instance, is determined by law. In regard to the deputy collectors, class A and first-class, excisemen, these increases are in accordance with the regulations which have been in existence for about fifteen years.


George Eulas Foster: Is that increase of $16,156 an increase in salaries under the regulations and not due to an increase in the number of officers?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: It is not due to an increase in the number of officers but last yen r we had what we call promotion examinations among the officers, and it is
' Mr. FITZPATRICK.
determined by the regulations that all who succeed in passing these promotion examinations receive promotion to the class to which they are entitled by the number of points they get in the examinations. The largest increase is $10,100 given to the first-class excisemen. These men were second or third-class excisemen, but having passed their promotion examination they are entitled under the regulations to the promotions which they received.


George Eulas Foster: What is the system which the hon. minister at present carries out in reference to these widely distributed officers and the inspection of them in the performance of their duties? Have you here in Ottawa and throughout the Dominion a system of inspection to ensure that these officers are looked after in their work ?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: We have inspectors in all the provinces. Take for example the province of Quebec; there are two inspectors to look after the head offices and the out offices. We have in Quebec five divisions. We have two inspectors to look after these five divisions. Each of these divisions has a collector who is the head of the division, but besides these officers we have also two inspectors, one for the Quebec district and another for the Montreal district. These two inspectors are obliged by the regulations and the law to go and inspect all the head offices and all the out offices in the province.


George Eulas Foster: How often are these visits of inspection made?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Every three months.


George Eulas Foster: For each district?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Yes, and once a month for every bonded warehouse.


George Eulas Foster: To whom do these inspectors report?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: To the department.


George Eulas Foster: Do they make then- reports monthly?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Yes, after their visits. Besides that, I may add, we have four general inspectors, one inspector of distilleries, one inspector of bonded warehouses, one inspector of breweries and one inspector of tobacco factories.


George Eulas Foster: Where are these four inspectors located?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: These four are among the inspectors I have just mentioned. They have to look after the inspection of their own districts, but at the same time they have a general supervision over the whole country in their particular branches. Take the inspector of cigar and tobacco factories, for instance; he is living in the city of Montreal, he is attending to his duty there as inspector of the district, and at the same

time, once a year he is supposed to visit all the tobacco factories in the country.


George Eulas Foster: He is supposed to; he does,
I suppose?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: As a matter of fact he does.


George Eulas Foster: And these inspectors report directly to the deputy of the hon. minister?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Yes.


George Eulas Foster: What are the general conditions of the tobacco industry as it comes under the observation of the hon. minister's department as regards extension or growth?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: The Canadian tobacco industry has increased largely of late years; in fact, about eight years ago there were only about 500,000 pounds of tobacco manufactured in this country, but now we have reached an output of nearly 5,000,000 pounds.


George Eulas Foster: Do you mean manufactured out of Canadian product?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Yes. Some years ago when the law was changed, tobacco manufacturers * were permitted to mix foreign tobacco with Canadian tobacco to the extent of ten per cent, and in this 5,000,000 pounds are included that ten per cent.


George Eulas Foster: How is it mixed-as a wrapper?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: In cigar factories it is mostly used for wrappers' because the imported wrappers are more suitable than the tobacco which is grown in this country, but in the manufacture of cut tobacco they use also a quantity of foreign tobacco.


George Eulas Foster: Personally what is the hon. minister's opinion from test as to the relative merits of foreign and home grown tobacco?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: I may say that I am not a smoker myself. I remember that question was put to me last year by aD hon. member of this House and he was much surprised to hear me say that our Canadian tobacco was just as good as foreign tobacco. I was told so by men who had some experience in the matter although my opinion was controverted by some hon. members of this House whom I have the honour to see before me just now. I would not like to express as positive an opinion as I did last year but I am told by several competent men-I will not say that those who hold a contrary opinion are not competent-that we can grow in this country a very good tobacco which can take the place of foreign leaf.


George Eulas Foster: Where is this growth chiefly extending?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: The growth of tobacco is carried on especially in the counties of Essex and Kent, in Ontario and in Montcalm, Berthier, Joliette, L'Assomption and Rouville in Quebec.


George Eulas Foster: These are practically the only sections of the Dominion in which tobacco culture is extensively carried on.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Practically. There is production also in the other counties, but
the tobacco raised in them is sold on the open markets and does not generally come into consumption through the manufacturers.


George Eulas Foster: The minister still believes in radical' production for the Canadian tobacco industry.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: I think that the protection that was given to the tobacco industry in 1896 has had a good effect, as has just been shown, because in 1896 a very small quantity of tobacco was grown or manufactured in this country. That production has now been multiplied ten times, and I suppose it will have a good effect.


George Eulas Foster: Is any of the Canadian leaf tobacco exported ?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: I do not think there is any large quantity, although some years ago an agent was sent, through the Department of Agriculture to Belgium to find if a market for our tobacco could not be opened there, but it did not result in success. I think our efforts should be to take hold of the Canadian market, and I think we can succeed in having our tobacco properly cured and properly prepared.


George Eulas Foster: In the meantime you will compel the Canadians to consume their own
product as far as possible ?


David Henderson: Perhaps I may be responsible for some of the remarks that have been made by the minister with reference to the quality of Canadian as compared with foreign leaf. I do not desire to say one word reflecting upon the Canadian product, but I would be glad if the department with the technical knowledge they have would be able to so assist the manufacturers and producers that they would be able to assimilate the Canadian product in flavour and taste to the imported article. While the Canadian tobacco may be as good as any in the world still its flavour is sometimes repugnant to a smoker who is accustomed to using the imported tobacco. If an article is produced in Canada more like the American article, the consumption of the Canadian tobacco will be very materially increased and that of imported tobacco correspondingly reduced. I think that is the desire of the minister, I think that is what he is aiming at. It is an admirable policy and we want to encourage the home market for our produ-

cers, but we must produce an article in our own country that will, as nearly as possible, meet the wishes of the great number of smokers in this country. My own opinion is that that has not yet been accomplished, and as the quality of the leaf is equal to the foreign leaf the difficulty must be in the process of curing. When we can so cure our tobacco as to produce the flavour of the American tobacco we will find that the consumption of Canadian leaf in this country will be very much increased.


Mr. CLEMENTS.: I quite agree with the hon. member for Haltou (Mr. Henderson). I myself come from the tobacco district. I do not know whether the minister uses tobacco himself or not, but if he does I shall be very glad to take him down there and give him samples of the very best tobacco, as I believe, that is grown in the world. We grow the quality of leaf there and I quite agree with the hon. member for Hal-ton that it is in the curing that we fall behind. I was speaking recently to a manufacturer of tobacco in my own town, an ardent supporter of the government, who told me that Canadian leaf, properly cured, is equal to any tobacco which is imported.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Hear, hear.


Herbert Sylvester Clements: It is an industry which is growing very rapidly, and I must give the present government credit for fostering that industry to some extent. I believe that a great deal could be done to assist tobacco growing in our country. I know that we grow it there and our farmers have found it a profitable crop at present prices. I believe the industry should be assisted and that the farmers should be encouraged in the growing of tobacco. Under these conditions our people would be able to supply the largest part of the tobacco consumed in this country. I would ask the minister to make every effort to assist us in that distinct in encouraging the trade. I might also say to the hon. minister that I agree with the hon. member for Halton and that the advice I have from manufacturers there is that a great deal could be done to Improve the curing of Canadian leaf. I believe that the fault with our tobacco, at the present time, lies there.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: I am very glad of the expressions of opinion which I have just heard from the hon. members. Since I have been at the head of the department I have taken a great interest in the question of tobacco growing and of fostering, as much as possible, the increased production and consumption of Canadian tobacco. I do not know why we should not succeed in having in this country Canadian tobacco consumed instead of foreign leaf tobacco.
I think that we can produce in this country just as good an article as the imported tobacco. Perhaps we cannot, in some instances, produce a leaf just as nice as those imported from Sumatra or Havana ; but Mr. HENDERSON.
there is no reason why good plug smoking and chewing tobacco should not be made entirely from Canadian leaf. It has been suggested that the curing of the tobacco in Canada has not been very good. Our producers have not perhaps been very successful in that respect ; but the government has taken every possible means to encourage them to give us a first-class leaf. A few months ago we sent to the state of Wisconsin, which has a similar climate to ours, some persons to study this question with reference to how the seeding is done and how the tobacco is cured. The governor of the state was good enough to place at the disposal of our agents his extensive farm, and to show them the various processes. They have reported to the Department of Agriculture, to which the question pertains more than it does to mine; but, at the same time, I am taking an active interest in the question, I feel strongly upon it, and I am going to do my best, and the government is going to do its best, to foster this industry in Canada. We found that the seeds used in Canada were not the best, and the two agents who visited Wisconsin are now delivering lectures in some parts of the country, and are supplying better seeds to the farmers. My opinion is that we should make extensive experiments on the experimental farm here. The Minister of Agriculture has already done something in that respect. I think we should try various kinds of seeds. I am glad to see that the feeling of this House is in favour of extending the production of Canadian leaf, and hon. members may rest assured that nothing shall be spared on my part, or on the part of the goverment, to encourage that industry, which is a very important one and deserves all the protection possible. We have been asked on several occasions by my hon. friend the Speaker and by other members to establish experimental farms in the districts where tobacco is produced on a large scale. We are considering that question, and if we find a means of making experiments on the experimental farm, we may afterwards establish experimental stations in some of the tobacco-growing districts.


Herbert Sylvester Clements: I want to congratulate the minister on the efforts he is making on behalf of our tobacco growers. As an illustration, I may mention that only a short time ago I asked a tobacco manufacturer in my city if there was any prospect of our Canadian leaf being manufactured into cigars, and he told me that he had made some cigars from tobacco which had been cured for about four years, and had given some of them to some expert American cigar, men who had been over here, and they pronounced them the best cigars they had ever smoked. Therefore, it seems to me that there is no reason why our Canadian tobacco could not be manufactured into oigars.


David Henderson: I have not much confidence in the production of tobacco at the experimental farm at Ottawa. I think the minister will find it to be an absolute failure owing to the frost. The experiments should be carried on in a climate not so susceptible to early frosts. The production of tobacco in this country is not the difficulty. The counties of Essex and Kent alone, along with the counties in Quebec which the hon. minister has named, would produce far more tobacco than would be consumed in this country. The difficulty is that the flavour of the Canadian tobacco is not what the great bulk of the people of this country want. Whether it is better than or not as good as that of American tobacco, X will not undertake to say; but if you are going to obtain a large consumption of Canadian tobacco for ordinary smoking purposes, you must secure a flavour like that of the American leaf. For instance, If you can get a flavour similar to that of the tobacco manufactured by Sir William Macdonald in which I understand there is no Canadian leaf, there is no reason why you cannot supplant the American leaf ; and I am sure that could be done. There ought to be scientific knowledge enough in this country to discover where the defect is and to bring about the desired result. When you do that, people will buy the Canadian tobacco, not knowing whether it is Canadian or American, and you will have a very large consumption of our native tobacco. The production will take care of itself. Although there is only a limited area in the counties of Essex and Kent devoted to tobacco growing, that area produces an enormous crop. It makes a man think well of his country to pass through those counties and see the immense tobacco crop in those small fields ; and the production is capable of any degree of expansion. But let me impress this upon the minister, that he must exert himself to assist the curers of tobacco to obtain a flavour similar to that of American tobacco ; then I am satisfied that the consumption will go on as rapidly as we desire.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: I do not wish to express my own personal opinion as to the superiority of the Canadian leaf or of the foreign leaf ; but I have been told by many competent persons that the supposed inferiority of Canadian tobacco is a mere matter of prejudice. I have known several persons who, after having smoked for years tobacco made by Macdonald, which is made entirely from foreign leaf, afterwards tried Canadian tobacco made by some other Canadian company, and declared it to be just as good as the other. I think it is more a matter of prejudice than anything else, and I hope that every one who smokes will try our good Canadian tobacco, and that the farmers will do their best to put on the market a first-class article.


David Henderson: The minister may be right; it may be largely a question of taste.
I am not saying that the Canadian tobacco is not as good as the American. It may be ; but that taste exists, and if we are going to have a large sale of Canadian tobacco, we must cater to the taste of the larger number. A very large number of smokers in this country prefer the flavour of tobacco made from the American leaf, and the efforts of the hon. minister should be along the line of assimilating the taste of the Canadian leaf to that of the American leaf. The moment that is accomplished, he will secure for Canadian tobacco a monopoly of the sale in this country.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Some seeding has been done on the experimental farm and some small experiments made with some success, but I do not think that the frost is prejudicial in this section to the growth of Canadian tobacco. Take the county of Montcalm, which is in the same latitude as Ottawa, there very good Canadian tobacco is grown, just ns good as that produced in the south. The state of Wisconsin is in the same latitude as Ottawa, why, therefore should we not produce in this section as good tobacco as is grown in Wisconsin ? The industry is in its infancy, but it is the duty of the government to protect that industry as far as possible and do everything possible to stimulate it.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The area in which you can grow tobacco in Canada is not at all limited. I saw tobacco grown forty years ago in districts where the frost was a great deal worse than it is to-day, and where you could not then grow wheat. There is no doubt a great deal of truth in the explanation of the hon. minister that the foreign leaf is preferred to the Canadian, simply because the people have acquired a taste for it. Let them begin to smoke Canadian leaf and they will find it just as palatable as the tobacco made by Sir Wm. Macdonald, of Montreal. I remember twenty years ago an old smoker telling me that he had smoked the Canadian twist made by the French habitant for 50 years and it was the best tobacco you could get. There is a lot of talk about the French, he said, but as long as they can make good tobacco, may God prosper them. Tobacco has been grown up in the Georgian Bay district, to my personal knowledge, for forty years, and can be grown in almost any county in Canada. But what I rose more particularly to inquire about was whether the government had made any effort at the experimental farm to ascertain whether tobacco could not be successfully grown in the prairies of the west, just as it is in the western prairies of the United States.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: I cannot say whether experiments have been made in the west, but I am inclined to think not. I shall be glad however to call attention to the suggestion which I think is a very good one.


John Graham Haggart: I understand from the hon. member for Halton (Mr. Henderson) that if we could grow tobacco similar to that manufactured by Sir Win. Macdonald in Montreal, that would settle the question at once. Is there any Canadian grown used in that manufactured by Sir William ?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: I think the proportion is live million pounds of Canadian tobacco against nine million of foreign leaf show the increasing popularity of our tobacco.


Mr. GUNN.: Does he use Canadian leaf ?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: No, he might use Canadian leaf, but his license is only for foreign leaf. I have been told, however, that in some cases those who have licenses for foreign leaf use the Canadian leaf. They pay the same duty as on the foreign leaf, 25 cents per pound, and mis up the Canadian leaf with the foreign, but I do not think Sir Wm. Macdonald uses any foreign leaf.


Mr. A. H. CLARKE.: Representing, as I do, a constituency in which tobacco is very largely grown, I wish to express my appreciation of the fostering influence which the policy of this government has had on that industry. In South Essex the growth of tobacco was begun earlier than in any other county of Ontario. Before the birth of any hon. gentleman in this House, the French Canadians there grew their own tobacco, and have been smoking it with a great deal of pleasure ever since. It is not many years ago when they could only get 4 cents a pound for their tobacco and then could only sell it with difficulty, but during the past year, under present conditions, they have sold at least 3,000.000 pounds and realized some $300,000 when they could not realize much from other crops on account of the wetness of the season. The people will commend the government if the government will not only continue the present policy of protecting the Canadian leaf but also establish some experimental station in South Essex in order that the leaf may be perfected so as to suit the taste of even the most particular. In Kingsville, cigars are now being manufactured wholly of Canadian leaf and a most successful trade is expected to be developed in that line.' I would urge the government to continue the work of perfecting and protecting the Canadian leaf in every way possible.


Andrew B. Ingram: I understood the hon. minister to say that all these different points wore inspected at least once a year. If he will turn to K-51, he will find that the Auditor General complains that the inspectors have not furnished certain information, and that Montreal had not been inspected since April, 1900. In his letter to the department of March 21, 1903, he complains that the city of Montreal has not been in-Mr. BRODEUR.
spected since 1900, and no explanation is given.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: This is a matter which is brought to my attention for the first time and I shall inquire into it. The regulations provide for an inspection at least once a year.


Andrew B. Ingram: The peculiar point about this is the remarkable fact that there has been no reply by the department to the Auditor General's letter.
Excise-to provide for duty pay to officers serving longer hours at other than special survey, $1,000.


George Eulas Foster: The amount is small; to whom does it go?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: This is to pay deserving officers engaged in special service on account of the long hours, and, in some cases the disagreeable character of their work. In some cases they serve from 7 a.m. to 6 p.m., being required to be present from the time the factory opens until it closes in the evening.


George Eulas Foster: Among how many officers is that divided?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: About twenty. Last year we spent about $700 on this account.
Excise-preventive service, $13,000.


George Eulas Foster: What do the officers do for this service besides drawing their salaries?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: The preventive service, as my hon. friend (Mr. Foster) knows is to prevent violation of the laws and to effect seizures where violations have taken place. These officers move about the country, and, wherever they find violations to have taken place, they make seizures. I am informed that last year, about sixty seizures were made. The presence of those officers in the community has a good effect and is itself a prevention of violation of the law.


George Eulas Foster: Does the fewness of the seizures prove that violations are few, or does it mean that the officers do not discover them.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: I think the violations are very few. We have first-class men connected with this service, some of whom have been with the department for many years. They are deserving men and are doing their best.


George Eulas Foster: Do these preventive officers get any part of the proceeds of a fine?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Yes, I think the seizing officer, if he is a preventive officer, is given one-half the proceeds of the seizure.


George Eulas Foster: I notice that the payments made last year to informers represent a small total and were paid to but few persons. The total amo'Tt paid was $838,

so that the total value of the seizures would be only about $1,600.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: The penalties imposed by the judge usually are not large. They run from $5 to $100.


George Eulas Foster: If a penalty is imposed and yet nothing can be collected, does the informer get anything?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: We pay, in that case, one-quarter of the amount.


George Eulas Foster: The idea being what ?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: It has been the custom in the department for many years. And it tends to encourage the giving of the information.
Excise-travelling expenses, rent, fuel, stationery, &c., $62,000.


George Eulas Foster: How does the minister regulate the travelling expenses of the officers?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: In some cases officers must go to new places to remain for some time. If a bonded factory or brewery is started in a new place, we cannot choose a local man as officer, one who has not had experience. We have to send an officer from the department to look after the new establishment for a certain time. In that case, we pay not only travelling expenses but board.


George Eulas Foster: How are the travelling expenses arranged?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: They are paid what they actually spend in travelling.


George Eulas Foster: For which they have to give vouchers?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Yes, as in the other departments.


Mr. BARR.: How does the minister account for the increase in this estimate over last year?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: We have to open new offices almost every mouth. New breweries, bonded factories and bonded warehouses are opened, and these have to be provided for. In fact, the expense is larger on account of the increase of population and consequently in the work.
Excise-to pay collectors of customs allowance for duty collected by them for 1904-5, $5,508.


George Eulas Foster: What does that mean ?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: In some places, where we do not wish to appoint a regular officer of the department, we obtain the services of the customs collector, to whom we pay 5 per cent on collections up to $3,000, over $3,000 and up to $5,000, $100 per annum ; over $5,000 and up to $10,000, $200 per annum; and over $10,000,	$250 per annum.
There is less expense than in the appointment of a regular officer.


George Eulas Foster: Does the minister do that in every ease where it can be reasonably done?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: In most of the cases where we can find a suitable officer in the Department of Customs, we generally make use of his services.
Excise-L. A. Frechette, for special translation, $100.


George Eulas Foster: What is the special translation ?


Mr BRODEUR.: We have special regulations and departmental reports to be translated. Take, for example, the bulletins of the department. These call for special knowledge on the part of the translator, because of the many technical expressions used. Therefore, we secure the assistance of Mr. Frechette who is the chief translator of the House of Commons. The documents to which I refer are not tabled in this House, so we cannot get them translated by the regular officers of the House. They are simply departmental documents.
Provisional allowance of not more than $100 each to officers in British Columbia, Manitoba1 and the Northwest Territories, whose salaries from any government source do not exceed $1,000, $1,500.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: The reason for this vote is that we cannot get, in the provinces named, officers of the same class that we can get in the eastern provinces and for the same pay. As an instance, I may mention that I asked an hon. member of this House to recommend somebody for an office in British Columbia, and the party recommended absolutely refused to take the position at $506, which was the sum at which he would have to enter upon his work. Some years ago provision was made that all officers having a salary of $800 should receive $100 additional, and now we find it necessary to make this additional provision.
To enable the department to supply methylated spirits to manufacturers, the cost of which will be recouped by the manufacturers to whom1 it is supplied, and to pay for rent, light, power, freight, salaries, &c., $60,000.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: This sum is to enable the department to purchase alcohol and wood naphtha for the manufacture of methylated spirits to supply manufacturers, and to pay for rent, light, power, freight, salaries, &e. The amount expended the last fiscal year was $50,645.06, and $26,466.91 for the last six months, expiring on the 1st of January last. The manufacture of methylated spirits was taken over from the bonded manufacturers and carried on by the department, as a protection to the revenue, July 1, 1888. It was known that these methylated spirits were being used as a substitute for genuine potable spirits, which was objectionable, not only from a

revenue standpoint, but as well on the grounds of injury to tbe public health. The duty was only 15 per cent per proof gallon as against the then duty of $1.30, and the existing duty of $1.90 on spirits. It was thus deemed necessary to take sole control of its manufacture and to supply It to responsible persons for stated purposes. Two grades were established, viz.: No. 1, consisting of about 25 per cent of wood naphtha, and No. 2, consisting of about 50 per cent. Grade No. 1 is supplied to varnish and other manufacturers who have obtained the necessary permit from the department, and who have entered into bonds, with sureties in the sum of $2,000, that such spirits shall only be used for the purposes mentioned, and in the premises described in their application. The present price of this grade is $1.10 per gallon.


George Eulas Foster: How do you fix that price 7


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: We take about 15 per cent profit. If we use 75 per cent of wood alcohol for which we pay $1.40 and 25 per cent of grain alcohol, for which we pay about 25 cents, we add about 15 per cent to the cost of the raw material. As I say, the present price of this grade is $1.10 per gallon. It is used for the manufacture of varnish, liquid glue, mucilage, inks, leather dressings, stove and shoe polish, soap, &c. Grade No. 2 is supplied to the trade for burning, &c., without the issue of a permit, and without entering into bonds. This is due to the fact that the percentage of wood naphtha is so large that its use for potable purposes would be impossible. The reason of the price of the latter being higher than the better grade is owing to the large quantity of wood naphtha used, which costs the department $1.40 as against 25 cents per gallon paid for alcohol. East year we bought $43,332.55 worth, and we sold for $68,325.69.


George Eulas Foster: Where did you get your raw material ?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: We used to buy it from the Standard Chemical Company.


George Eulas Foster: Where are their works ?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: They have works at Cookshire, Fenelon Falls, and I think Toronto.


George Eulas Foster: Are these all the places in which they manufacture ?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Those are the only places that I remember. I think they have four or five places.


John Barr: How do you buy ?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: A contract was made some years ago with the Standard Chemical Company when the system was introduced here. The first contract was made with the Rathbun Company, and they refused to carry it out, and we gave it to the Standard Mr. BRODEUR.
Chemical Company. I think that company is a combination of the Rathbun Company and the Standard Chemical Company, that is my impression. The contract ceased some years ago and was not renewed. After I entered the department I concluded it was not a very good system, and that it would be better to call for tenders, and we did call for tenders in the months of December and January. I am not quite sure, but I think the contract is to be awarded to some other firm.


John Barr: What is the lowest tender 7


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: $1.29. The contract was given to the lowest tenderer with one exception

I must be frank with the House -there was a tender from an American firm offering to supply an American article free of duty ; but I refused to accept that tender, and recommended Council to accept the lowest tender for the Canadian article.


George Eulas Foster: What did you pay before 7


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: $1.40, now we are getting it at $1.29.


Andrew B. Ingram: What method did the hon. gentleman adopt in calling for tenders 7


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: We advertised in the newspapers for tenders for the supply of wood naphtha of a certain quality, which was to be approved by the department. We advertised in all the important papers of the country. The accountant informs me that he paid for advertisements in twenty-five papers.


John Barr: Were any of those papers in Toronto 7


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Yes, there was the ' News,' I am informed, and the Toronto ' Globe,' of course.
Salaries of officers, inspectors and assistant inspectors of weights and measures, $63,750.


Andrew B. Ingram: Is there any report published by the department giving a detailed statement of the inspections made by the different inspectors of gas and electric plants 7


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: There is a report which will be found in Part II.


Andrew B. Ingram: It is a very limited report merely giving the number of plants inspected.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: It covers several pages of the report. I do not know whether my hon. friend has seen it or not but it is in the second part of the Inland Revenue Report.


Andrew B. Ingram: I have not seen the one for this year but I have seen it in other years'. A number of municipalities throughout the

Dominion, in Ontario, at all events, are very much interested in what they call municipal ownership, and they ares very eager to secure information which the inspection of these various plants will give them. The only source from which they can get that information is through the government inspection.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: The report, as far as gas inspection is concerned, is to be found at pages 22-52 of the Inland Revenue Report. There are thirty pages devoted to the inspection of gas.
' Mr. INGRAM. Is the method of reporting now adopted the same as it has been for years ?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Yes, the same system.


George Eulas Foster: Is the inspection of weights and measures being carried on in the same basis as it was eight or ten years ago ?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: No, there has been an improvement in respect to weights and measures.


George Eulas Foster: What has been done ?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: We thought a good way to deal with the question would be to have a chief inspector here. Some years ago we appointed a chief inspector who is looking after the work that is done by inspectors and assistant inspectors of weights and measures. He is looking after their accounts and at the same time wherever there is a complaint, he, being a practical man, goes and investigates the matter. I am doing my best to prevent a continuation of the deficit which has been met with for many years in that branch of the service.


George Eulas Foster: What does it stand at now ?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Before I took charge of the department there was a deficit of $25,000 while last year there was a deficit of $18,000. I am strongly of the opinion that both ends should come together.


George Eulas Foster: How are you going to make the two ends come together ?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: I have asked the inspector to look into the accounts and report ways in which more economy can be observed. I feel certain that we will be successful in reducing the deficit.


George Eulas Foster: Are weights for the whole Dominion inspected every year ?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Every two years.


George Eulas Foster: Do you find many complaints as to wrong weights and measures ?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: No, not many, I think the law has a very good effect. I am inclined to believe that if we give that branch of the service close attention we will succeed in having a first-class service.


Andrew B. Ingram: Has the hon. gentleman increased the number of inspectors throughout the country ?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: No, auite the contrary. In some places I have even refused to make new appointments because I found it was not necessary to do so.


Mr. WHITE.: Is there a uniform charge for the inspection of weights and measures ? Are the manufacturers of scales, of whom there are several in the Dominion, charged the same rate as ordinary individuals for inspection ?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Yes, they are charged the same rate.


Andrew B. Ingram: In the matter of the metric system would the hon. minister explain what success he is meeting with ? The hon. gentleman will remember that last year we had Professor McLennan before the committee.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: As to the metric system I last year got a certain sum of money in order to disseminate, to as great an extent as possible, a knowledge of the system throughout the country. We have distributed to high schools and important schools generally metric sets in order to teach the school boys the system. It is now becoming more generally used in the schools of the country and the generation which is now growing up will certainly be au fait with it. I have been in communication with Lord Strathcona on the question, and he has kept me posted as to what is being done in England in that respect. It is not to be forgotten that last year a Bill was introduced into the House of Lords providing for the introduction of the metric system thus rendering the metric system compulsory in England. The Bill passed the House of Lords and was sent to the House of Commons but parliament adjourned before the question was decided by the House of Commons. I think the matter will come this year before the House of Commons in England. I have obtained copies of the Bill and the report of the discussion on the subject in England and I will be very glad to show these to any hon. member who would like to become acquainted with the Bill and discussions which have taken place there.


Andrew B. Ingram: In pressing for the adoption of the metric system does the hon. minister meet with any opposition from any quarters ?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: So far we have had no strong opposition. The only representations which the department has received have been in favour of the adoption of the system.


David Henderson: The hon. minister said that most of the high schools were being supplied with metric sets. Last year the hon. minister was good enough to send to the high school in my county one of the

sets. Where there is a second or third high school in the county will more than one be supplied ?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Certainly ; wherever there is a high school, whether there are several in the county or not it does not make any difference. I would be glad to supply the schools referred to by my hon. friend with one of the sets each.


David Henderson: 1 am very much obliged to the hon. minister and I will be glad to make another application to him for sets. '


Mr. TAYLOR.: About two weeks ago I left a letter in the hon. minister's office from the head master of the high school at Gananoque. I have had no answer to it yet. I hope instructions have been given to ship the metric system set which was asked for.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: It must have been sent. However, I will inquire into it.


George Taylor: I left the letter addressed to the hon. minister with the hon. gentleman's secretary.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: It must have been overlooked because I usually answer all letters sent to me.
Rent, fuel, travelling expenses, postage, stationery, &c., for weights and measures, including amount for purchase of standards of the metric system, salaries and other expenses of inspectors, &c., $35,000.
Mr. FOSTER, These are standards for use at Ottawa ; are they ?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Yes.


George Eulas Foster: What do they cost ?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Do you mean the metric system sets ?


George Eulas Foster: Yes.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: $8.33 each.


George Eulas Foster: What are these standards ? Are they what you call metric system sets ?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Yes, they are metric system sets which have been imported from France.


George Eulas Foster: How many of these are you purchasing, and what is the idea ?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: I am giving one to each higli school.


John Barr: Are you sending to each school or only to those that apply ?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: I am waiting for applications.


George Eulas Foster: The purpose is just to educate the country up to it.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Yes. To put it in the hands of teachers to educate the children attending the schools.


David Henderson: 


George Eulas Foster: And when you have done the educational work, you are going to introduce the system ?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Nothing has yet been decided as to that, but I suppose it will have to come. If this system is adopted in England, as is likely, I suppose we will have to do the same thing and also if it is adopted in the United States. I spoke of the movement that is going on in England and I may say that in the United States a very strong movement is being made with regard to the introduction of the system there. When it is introduced in England and the United States we will have to follow suit.


George Eulas Foster: You do not propose to get a little ahead of them ?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: We have not yet decided as to that.


George Eulas Foster: It is worth thinking about.
Salaries of inspectors of gas and electric light, $25,000.


Mr.  A. A.@: McLEAN (Queen's, P.E.I.) What fees are chargeable by these inspectors of electric light and gas ?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: The average cost per meter is $1 for five years. There is a regular tariff.


Andrew B. Ingram: Would the minister give us the instructions to the inspectors? What information are they supposed to supply to the department ?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: They have to inspect the meters which are brought to be inspected, they have in each office an apparatus to test electric light meters and those who want their meters inspected bring them there. They are inspected and stamped and certificates are given.


Mr. A. A. McLEAN.: Are these fees paid by the consumer or by the company ?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: The fee is paid by the owner of the meter in all cases. If there is some difficulty between the contractor and the consumer, and the consumer wants to have his meter inspected, he asks for the inspection, and if there lias been some mistake in favour of the consumer the contractor has to pay for the inspection. The same thing applies to gas meters.


Angus Alexander McLean: Is any person appointed by the department to instruct these inspectors as to the manner in which they shall perform their duty ?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Yes, instructions are of course issued as to the manner in which the inspection shall be made.


John Barr: Is there any fixed charge that they can assess the consumer.?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Yes, there is a charge. It is set forth in the Order in Council pass-

ed January 31, 1899. For meters of tlie capacity of ten lights and under, 75 cents ; for meters of ten lights and not exceeding 20, $1.25 ; for meters from 20 to 30 lights, $1.75; for meters from 30 to 45 lights, $2.25 ; for meters from 45 to CO lights, $2.75; for meters from CO to 80 lights, $3 ; for meters from 80 to 100 lights, $3.50. This is for once in five years.


Peter White: With reference to the item of electric light inspection, I understand that the collectors of excise revenue in small towns are expected to perform that duty.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: The collectors simply collect the inspection fees.


Peter White: Take the case of the town I live in. The inspector lives in Ottawa. Have his expenses to be paid by the parties asking his services if he goes to inspect an electric meter or a number of electric meters at Pembroke ? Are the expenses from here to that town added to the fees ?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: No, that is paid by the department.


Andrew B. Ingram: There is very little information in this blue book based on the reports of the electric light inspectors. Nothing is given as to the amount invested in each plant, the output of gas or electric light. Supposing a man wants to obtain information, for instance as to the amount of machinery and the output of electric light and gas companies, in order that municipalities desiring to go into the ownership of these services can obtain information as to the cost, there is no information of that kind furnished in this report. What I am now asking is whether it would be possible to have a report of the inspectors giving the cost of machinery in the various gas and electric light plants and the output. I do not mean to have them go into details as to the profit and loss because that would be unreasonable, but such a report as I have indicated would be of value to the municipality.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: The interference of the department in the question of gas and electric light is simply for the purpose of testing the measures that are used in connected with the gas and electric light ; that is the full scope of the work of our department.


George Eulas Foster: And it is not compulsory ?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Oh yes, it is compulsory, every meter has to be inspected. My bon. friend from East Elgin (Mr. Ingram) is asking me whether we could not give in cur reports the output of each company and the amount of work which they are doing and all the figures that would be given, say, in a census of those companies. That does not at all pertain to our department. What we have to do is simply to inspect the measures used by those companies. We have no means of ascertaining their output, 54.
their wealth and their revenue. That does not pertain at all to our work, we have simply to test the measures. We test the weights used by a merchant but we are not supposed to find out how much business that man is doing and what he is worth. It is the same with the gas and electric light companies, and I do not think it would be possible, certainly it would be outside the scope of the present Act, to ask for this information because we have no right to get this information from these companies.


Angus Alexander McLean: Supposing that the inspector found that the meters supplied by the company were of an inferior quality ? Would it be his duty to make a report to the department ?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Yes, it is his duty to report to the department.


Angus Alexander McLean: Then whose duty would it be to take measures to compel the company to supply proper meters ?
Mr. BRODEUR, The company is notified to see that its gas is purified ; and if it does not do so, it is subject to the penalty.


George Eulas Foster: The verdict is only as to the quality of the gas ?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Yes.


George Eulas Foster: What is the state of the ledger In regard to the electric light inspection ?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: The revenue from gas and electric light inspection last year was $50,218.25, and the expenses, $33,426.15.


George Eulas Foster: In these expenses you include everything ?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Yes ; all the expenses in connection with the service.


George Eulas Foster: How does the account stand in weights and measures ?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: The expenditures last year were $84,768.82, and the receipts, $66,355.19.


George Eulas Foster: Taking the two together you are about on an even basis. That is satisfactory as far as it goes. I have always had the opinion, and have tried to enforce it, that these are services that ought not to involve the government in any cost. They are business operations in which the revenue ought to be made to cover every expense that is incurred.
Metric system-to provide for the delivery of lectures and the publication of maps, charts, pamphlets, &c., relating to the metric system of weights and measures, $3,000.


Andrew B. Ingram: Who is going to do the lecturing ?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: No lectures have been given yet. My idea last year, when I first asked for this vote, was to send some person to deliver lectures before the various



boards of trade and such bodies as the Canadian clubs throughout the country. Last year I invited Professor McLennan, of Toronto University, to come and deliver a lecture here. He was kind enough to do so, and gave us a very interesting lecture, of which a number of copies have been distributed, and we are frequently asked to have more printed for distribution in the schools. My idea would be to have a small phamplet explanatory of the system prepared and placed in the hands of all the teachers and children in the public schools of the country. We have distributed sets of the metric system among the high schools, and we should distribute these little pamplets among the teachers and children in the lower schools. I think that would tend to popularize the system. As I have said, we may expect in a year or two to introduce and render compulsory the metric system in this country, especially if it is adopted in the countries with which we deal, such as England, the United States and Australia.


George Eulas Foster: My impression is that you would not gain very much from a general distribution of a pamphlet among the school children ; but I think it would be a good idea to distribute instructions on the subject among the teachers, so that they could give it to those who would make some use of it. I should think it would be an excellent idea to distribute among the teachers a pamphlet which would be explicit, definite, and not too long.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: That is part of the work I intended to do.
Adulteration of food and fertilizers, and the administration of the Act respecting fraudulent marking, $30,000.


George Eulas Foster: Give us an idea of what is going on in that.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: The Adulteration of Food Act provides that food inspectors shall collect samples of food in different parts of the country every time they are so requested by the department. The samples so collected are sent either to the district analyst or to the department in Ottawa to be analysed. The result of the analysis is then published in bulletins, which are distributed to the members, and also published in our annual report. We find that a great many articles are adulterated, and my intention is to pursue a very aggressive policy with respect to these adulterations. For example, last year we had analysed some spices, most of which were found to be adulterated. The same was true with regard to jams and jellies. Samples of liquor were collected and, strange to say, most of them were found to be absolutely pure, except for the addition of a large quantity of water, which is not an adulteration under the Adulteration Act. We find that maple sugar and mapie syrup are adulterated on a very large scale.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: 


George Eulas Foster: What with ?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: With all sorts of things. Generally sugar cane and glucose are used, which are adulterations according to the Act, unless the manufacturers state on the label that the article is a compound. In some instances we have taken proceedings to obtain convictions against those violating the law.


John Barr: Is it not a fact that several establishments in Montreal and other places manufacture very large quantities of what they call maple sugar from cane sugar and so on, which they ship to the old country with the result that the legitimate trade is being ruined?
Mr. BRODEUR, The chief analyst received instructions a few days ago to look into that question. It has been found, as my hon. friend has just said, that manufacturing houses are now making what they call maple sugar, but what has never seen the maple tree. It is my duty to see that these violations of the law are punished, and I intend doing so as early as possible.


George Eulas Foster: We have had an adulteration of Food Act a number of years, can my hon. friend give us an idea as to what progress has been made in purifying the food stuffs of the country?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: The publication of the bulletins has had a good effect, but we shall have to follow a more aggressive policy. Last year I found that in spices the adulteration was in some eases simply horrible. I may say the same with regard to jams and jellies, but I must say, to the credit of the manufacturers, that they came to Ottawa to interview the department and agreed to take proper means to prevent adulteration in the future.


John Barr: Have there been many actions taken under the Act ? Last year, I believe, there was more adulteration than ever. Take for instance this manufacture of so called maple sugar, which has never seen the maple tree. Then take our jams and jellies, according to reports, the adulteration is worse in these than ever before.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: I am not ready to admit that the adulteration in jams and jellies is increasing, because I have the formal promise of all the manufacturers-of most of them at all events-that they will cease using glucose in such large quantities. There were strawberry jams manufactured, for instance, which were perfectly innocent of any strawberry. They were made out of apples which were boiled with some salicylic acid and glucose and sometimes hayseeds were used to make the mixture look like strawberry jam.


John Barr: I am afraid we are making little progress in stamping out this adulter-

ation. Take our white wine vinegar, maple vinegar, and so on, it is well known that most of these are impure. It does seem to me that if a collection were made of these adulterations and the law vigorously applied, you would see a great improvement in a few months. But unless the law be applied vigorously, I am afraid you will not accomplish anything.


Mr.   BRODETJR@: My hon. friend drew my attention to the question of adulterated maple sugar. Well, since a few months we have secured five convictions.


John Barr: That is a start.


Mr.   BRODETJR@: I hope it will go on. I am very well disposed to do my best because it is very important that our maple sugar industry should not be ruined.


David Henderson: No doubt the information furnished by the chief analyst is very desirable and useful, but I fear a great deal of labour is spent to very little purpose, because that information does not reach the general public. What system has the minister of distributing the bulletins ? A member of parliament may get two copies and those may be the only ones that will reach his county.


Mr.   BRODETJR@: We are giving the bulletins to the members of both Houses and to those who are entitled to the distribution of public documents. More than that we distribute them gratuitously to all those who ask for them and send copies besides to all the vendors of the articles analysed. It would perhaps be better if a more general distribution were made.


George Eulas Foster: How many were distributed last year ?


Mr.   BRODETJR@: A thousand copies of each bulletin and twelve bulletins were issued.


Mr. ARMSTRONG.: This is a matter of great importance, especially to those Arms which are trying their best to give the people a good article. I know of several industries that try to provide pure jams and jellies, but they are handicapped by men who are selling inferior articles at reduced prices. Would it not be wise for the hon. minister to spend a certain amount of money in publishing these bulletins in the weekly or daily papers ?


Mr.   BRODETJR@: The suggestion is a good one, but I would not like to accept if off hand, because the publication of these bulletins in the press would cost a great deal of money. I shall however, consider it carefully. Certainly, 12,000 bulletins is a very small number to be distributed throughout the country, and the people whom the information would most interest do not receive the bulletins at all, whereas if the matter appeared in the daily newspapers, it would * 54$
reach those for whom it is intended, and would be of interest to all. I know a gentleman who put $15,000 into an industry of this kind only last year, and already he finds the inferior goods contracting his markets to a very great extent, because they are sold at low prices.


George Eulas Foster: What is the minister's outside machinery for detecting adulteration ?


Mr.   BRODETJR@: In each district, we have a food inspector. Instructions are sent to these inspectors, from time to time to collect samples of the goods. Say, for instance, an inspector is instructed to collect samples of maple sugar. From a certain dealer he takes three samples. One of these is left within the vendor and the other two are sent either to the department here, or to the district analyst. And these are analysed.


George Eulas Foster: He only collects samples ns he is instructed to do so ?


Mr.   BRODETJR@: Yes. He gets instructions from the department to collect samples of certain articles and he does so.


George Eulas Foster: Are the food inspectors kept busy at that ?


Mr.   BRODETJR@: These men, as a rule, are not only food inspectors but excise officers also, and, when not engaged in the collection of food samples, they are attending to other business.


George Eulas Foster: ' I see here in the Auditor General's Report entries showing that one Thomas Kidd is a food inspector who is paid $500 salary and $116 for travelling expenses. He has an allowance for rent of office and so on. If he only collects samples as he is instructed to do, it seems to me Mr. Kidd does not do a very large amount of work.


Mr.   BRODETJR@: I think his inspection district covers the whole of Ontario, west of Toronto.


George Eulas Foster: But he cannot have done very much to cover that district, because the travelling expenses with which he is charged amount to only $116. That would not carry him very far. It would be interesting to know just how many collections of samples this inspector has made. Does he have to travel to collect these samples ?


Mr.   BRODETJR@: Certainly.


George Eulas Foster: The indications are that he did not do much travelling ; and, if not much travelling then not much collecting ; if not much collecting, then he has not done much for his salary, because I see he is confined to this duty.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Many samples have been collected during the year, including a proportion from Mr. Kidd's district. Travelling in that district would not be so expensive as in others covering a larger area. In any

case Mr. Kidd's is a special case ; I think my hon. friend (Mr. Foster) will not And any other food inspectors but have other work to do as excise officers, inspectors of weights and measures or otherwise in connection with the department's work. Mr. Kidd is the only case and I see that he was appointed in 1890.


George Eulas Foster: It is not a question of when he was appointed, but whether the government are spending money and not getting due service for it. The other food inspectors seem to receive small salaries, and I imagine that most of them must do something else.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: That is true of all of them except Mr. Kidd. I was saying that he had been appointed many years ago, and 1 suppose that that is the reason he has no other work in connection with the department.


George Eulas Foster: The inspectors seem to go only when they are instructed. Perhaps the minister has not given instructions to Mr. Kidd.	'


Andrew B. Ingram: Has not the department changed its system within the last few years ? Formerly samples of food for analysis were sent to the department here and the work was done here. But I think that analysts have been appointed for different parts of the country, and samples are now sent to them.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: I may explain that it has been found that these food inspectors have not work for the whole year round. They are supposed to work perhaps four or five months and for the rest of the year they -have nothing to do. That is why, in the appointments lately made, we have tried to appoint men as food inspectors who were already in the service as excise officers or inspectors of weights and measures. Take a man in a district where there is only one bonded warehouse ? He can easily absent himself from his place for a few days and attend to the collection of food samples. I see that Mr. Kidd is simply a food inspector. But his territory is a populous one, and, though he does not seem to have travelled much, he has certainly attended to his work in that district, as the chief analyst tells me that he has had samples from that district as from the others.


Mr. LABOR.: How does the minister interpret the term ' adulteration of food ? ' The hon. member for East Lambton (Mr. Armstrong) has raised this point as to jam. Suppose an article is put on the market called raspberry jam. If it is in part raspberry jam but with apples used as a filler, would that be considered adulterated ?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Certainly, if it is not marked ' compound.' The law provides that if, on analysis it is found to contain any ingredient injurious to health, it is then de-Mr. BRODEUR.
Glared adulterated. If it is not the pure article, but contains nothing injurious to health, the label must bear the word ' compound ' or the party is liable to be prosecuted for violation of the law. That is the way we proceed with those violations. Take the case of raspberry jams put on the market without containing any raspberries at all. That would certainly be a violation of the Adulteration Act because they have no right to sell an article as raspberry jam if there is no raspberry at all in it.


Mr.   L A LOR@: I am pleased with the interpretation of the minister. But I cannot see where any harm is done to the public when the article used as a substitute in the manufacture of a jam is a good article of food and not in any way detrimental to the people who buy it. Now, Canadian jams that are made and sold on the market are largely made from apple pummace, and then a certain amount of fruit is added in order that it may bear the name of the particular fruit that is stamped on the label. There is no harm at all done to the public who buy that, and I am glad to hear that it is not considered an adulteration where the substitute used is perfectly healthy and not in any way detrimental to any purchaser.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: If the substitute replaces absolutely the article which is named on the label, it is an adulteration. Take the ease of strawberry jam. Strawberries are very scarce, and I am informed that instead of using the strawberries they are using turnips. There is no strawberry in it, and it would not be fair to allow such an article to pass without declaring it adulterated. The department declares that when a substitute is made for the genuine article, if it is not marked ' compound,' then the article is declared adulterated. If there is no strawberry in the jam at all it is declared adulterated, even if the foreign fruit is not injurious to public health.


Mr.   L A LOR@: If the package is marked pure raspberry jam and 25 per cent of that is raspberry and the balance is apple, would you call that an adulteration ?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Certainly, the department would declare it an adulteration, because it is sold as pure raspberry jam, whereas 75 per cent of it is not raspberry.


Mr. A. MARTIN.: Would it not be well to compel the manufacturer to state on the label the ingredients of which the article is composed ? I do not know if that would be practicable, but it would relieve the public mind to know exactly what the article is composed of. If it was strawberry jam the people would like to know how much strawberry was in it and how much apple-compel the manufacturer to put the ingredients on the label.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: I am informed by the chief analyst that it would be very difficult

for manufacturers to comply with that condition. When an article is sold containing ingredients foreign to the article itself, then the manufacturer has to put the word 'compound ' on the label, and the word has to be as prominent as the other words of the label. In that way the manufacturer can comply with the law,.-and that prevents a great deal of adulteration. That is what we are doing at the present time.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: With reference to the estimate, 1 do not think it is too large ; in fact I think it would be wise to make it larger, if by so doing you can inform people as to the kind of fruit that is put into the jams they are eating. From what I can learn, in many of the factories throughout the country, to a large extent, jams in particular are made up of most inferior fruits and turnips and glucose, and most inferior grades of these articles. However, I would like to ask, with reference to these bulletins, does the minister mean, when he says that 12,000 bulletins are issued, that each bulletin covers all kinds of food ?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Last year 1,000 bulletins covering each article were issued. We have twelve bulletins issued ; one, for instance, with regard to milk, another with regard to spices, another with regard to jams and jellies, and so on ; 1,000 bulletins regarding each article have been distributed.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: The minister must see that only 12,000 bulletins for the whole Dominion would be of very little use. When . you expend $30,000 in obtaining the information. that information is certainly worth distributing far and wide. I would strongly advise the minister to make a still wider distribution of the bulletins.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: I am informed that the bulletins are not distributed to newspapers. I think it would be advisable to distribute them to newspapers, and I shall give instructions to that effect. The press usually takes a great deal of interest in these matters, and I think would be glad to publish the information.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: If you leave it to the newspapers, they are likely to pick out only such parts as they please and to publish a garbled statement. Would it not be wise for the department to issue a synopsis of the bulletins, and send the synopsis to the newspapers ?


Mr. HERRON.: Is it the intention of the department to continue the policy of prosecuting parties who sell goods marked as genuine when they are not genuine ?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: We intend to enforce the law rigidly in that respect. Last year I found there were a great number of violations, and we must find means to prevent them if possible.


Mr.   L A LOR@: I may inform the minister that he will find there are very few goods
sold on the market to-day known as jams, for instance, that are pure. The department may go a little too far in that direction. The manufacturers of jams and jellies in this country have to compete with American and English jams, and I doubt if there is any jam sold to-day, either imported or Canadian, that is absolutely pure. For myself, I cannot see where it is detrimental to the public health if apple pulp is used along with other pure fruits. I hope the law will not be interpreted too rigidly in that respect. because it may have the effect of killing a very Important industry in this country.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: I may say that my hon. friend is misinformed as to jams imported from England, because by the analysis we made last year we found that the jams imported into this country from England were absolutely pure. But we did not find the same thing in regard to the Canadian and American product. We not only collect samples of the Canadian product but we collect samples of goods which are brought into the country. I must say that it is to the credit of England that the jams and jellies imported from that country which we analysed last year were found to be absolutely pure.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: I cannot agree with my hon. friend from Haldimand (Mr. Lalor) in" reference to allowing a certain amount of adulteration. There is no doubt that there is plenty of fruit in our country and there is no excuse for the factories not producing a good pure article. I know there are factories that .are doing their utmost to produce a pure article, and it would be very unsatisfactory so far as they are concerned if any adulteration were permitted.


John Barr: That would be all right if the department were as watchful in connection with goods imported from England or the United States. If our producers have to compete with outoide manufacturers and if we allow Americans to send goods in here without carefully watching their product it would be a great hardship on our own manufacturers.
At six o'clock, House took recess.
After Recess.
House resumed at eight o'clock.



[Stage Direction]
House in committee on Bill (No. 34), respecting the Nicola, Kamloops and Similka-meen Coal and Railway Company.
On section 3,
The company, as now organized, is hereby declared to he, and to have been since the pas-
[Stage Direction]
170S
sing of chapter 164 of the statutes of 1903, a body corporate and politic within the legislative authority of the parliament of Canada, with power to lay out, construct and operate the railway works described in the Acts of the province of British Columbia mentioned in the preamble, and with all the other powers therein set forth, so far as the legislative powers of the parliament of Canada extend, save and except only such provisions of the said Acts, if any, as are inconsistent with the Railway Act, 1903 ; but nothing herein contained shall affect or invalidate any action heretofore taken by the company pursuant to powers in the said Acts contained. .
Thomas Simpson Sproule: Is that the date of the Provincial Act ?


Mr. HYMAN.: Yes, this is the Bill that went to a sub-committee and the committee accepted the report of the sub-committee.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: It seems to me that it raises a very important question. If there is a provincial Act, and litigation should arise under the provisions of the provincial Act, the fact that we are now declaring that from the time that Act was passed in the province the railway was a work for the general advantage of*Canada, we are practically bringing it under federal jurisdiction and authority, and difficulty might arise. We would seem to be deliberately interfering with the powers of the province.


Charles Smith Hyman: The Bill was carefully considered in committee ; it also went to a subcommittee.


Mr. LOGAN.: I was a member of the subcommittee which considered this Bill. The conditions are very peculiar as I remember it. In the first place in 1891 an Act was passed by the British Columbia legislature incorporating this company. In 1S93 the company came to this House . asking that this work be declared for the general advantage of Canada, but when they came here a question was raised as to whether or not the charter granted in 1891 had expired under the provision of the General Railway Act of British Columbia, which required that they should do a certain amount of work at a certain time, which had not been done. When this was brought to the attention of the House in 1903, there was a stay of proceedings until the British Columbia House had passed another Act reviving the old charter. On the receipt of a telegram from the British Columbia legislature stating that this Act had been passed, this parliament, in 1903, passed an Act declaring this work to be for the general advantage of Canada. When they came to get the Bill which was passed in 1903 by the British Columbia legislature, they found that it contained a clause which took the control of the rates out of the power of the Railway Commission and gave it to the Governor in Council of British Columbia. The question was then raised Mr. BARR.
whether it was not ultra vires of the legislature of British Columbia to pass that Act, and consequently there has been some question with reference to the validity of the bonds of this company. Now as they desire to extend the line to a point on the Vancouver, Victoria and Eastern Railway, they come to parliament and aak us to pass this Act to validate their bonds and so remove any doubts about the British Columbia Act.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: It may be that the province of British Columbia gave a subsidy and in consideration thereof reserved to themselves the right to control freight rates, but now we declare the work to be for the general advantage of Canada and bring it under the Dominion Railway Act. The rates on railways under the Dominion Railway Act are controlled by a commission, so that we take the power which the legislature reserves to themselves away from them, although they reserved it probably for a consideration. That is sometimes done as in the case of the agreement between the legislature of Manitoba and the Canadian Northern Railway. The legislature reserved the right to control freight rates in consideration of guaranteeing the bonds of the railway. In such a case, if we should declare the railway to be for the general advantage of Canada and thereby bring it under the General Railway Act, we certainjy would be con-liicting with their power to control freight rates, and the question would arise whether the provincial authorities or the Railway Commission would control' the rates. The same question may be involved here.


Hance James Logan: The company has already, by the Act of 1903, been declared for the general advantage of Canada. Therefore this Bill does not affect it so far as that goes. But they ask us under this Bill for power to extend this road to connect with the Vancouver, Victoria and Eastern Railway at or near Grand Forks, and at or near Midway with the Columbia and Western Railway. We amend the second clause to read :
All powers of the company in relation to tha railway which it now has authority to construct shall extend and apply to the extension authorized in section 1 of this Act.
I admit that it is a very much mixed up piece of legislation, but at the same time, as far as declaring it for the general advantage of Canada is concerned, that has been already done in 1903, in regard to the main portion of the road, and this is only continuing	to the extension	of that
road the same provisions as were made in the Act of 1903. There did not seem to be any objection to the Bill ; there were some British Columbia members present at the meeting of the sub-committee, but there did: not seem to be any opposition coming from

British Columbia with reference to this matter.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I do not know if they got any subsidy from British Columbia and if in lieu of that, the legislature retained in their hands the right to control the rates. 1 think that before the Bill is read the third time is should be submitted to the Minister of Justice or some competent authority connected with the government to look into it and see that we are not infringing on rights belonging to the province.


Sir WILLIAM MULOCK.: It is quite clear that we are not doing that because the amending words qualify that meaning.
So far as the legislative powers of the parliament of Canada extend.
We are declaring that the company shall continue to enjoy the powers it now enjoys by authority of its provincial Act so far as the legislative powers of the parliament of Canada extend. We do not purport to legislate in any way beyond our own powers. It is possible that a province may be able to legislate with regard to a local work to a greater extent than we can. Therefore, we do not purport by this amendment to ratify any powers granted by the provincial Act in excess of those powers which this parliament can grant.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: This brings the freight rates under the control of the Railway Commission.


William Mulock: All railways subject to this parliament are under the control of the Railway Act.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: If we control the freight rates, how can the province ?


William Mulock: It cannot. The moment it becomes a Dominion railway, it comes within the Railway Act. However, the lion. gentleman's suggestion that the third reading should stand over is not unreasonable.


Mr. E. M. MACDONALD.: The point involved in this Bill is that this railway having been declared one for the general advantage of Canada, it declares that from the date of the passage of the Bill providing for that the company owming the railway has corporate rights and powers. This parliament alone is seized with the jurisdiction to deal with this railway in this declaratory way. That is the view of the subcommittee, and that view was shared by the hon. member for Norfolk (Mr. Tisdale), who drafted the amendment- made to the third clause, and by the hon. member for Beauharnois (Mr. Bergeron), who were members of that committee.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I do not think it is competent for us to take over any provincial railway and destroy any rights the province
has in it by saying that it is for the general advantage of Canada. That is a question of law to be determined ultimately by the courts. We have had that question before this House again and again, and there seem to be no decisions that touch directly upon it. We may be within our rights or we may not. If we are within our rights, we may be interfering with the rights that properly belonged to the province when it originally granted the charter for this railway.
Bill reported.


CONSIDERED IN COMMITTEE-THIRD READING.
[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 40) respecting the Niagara-Wel-land Power Company.-Mr. Guthrie.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 71) respecting the Great Northern Railway of Canada.-(Mr. M. S. Schell.

[Stage Direction]
House in Committee of Supply.
Adulteration of food and fertilizers, and the administration of the Act respecting fraudulent marking, 530,000.
Joseph Elijah Armstrong: Before this item passes, I wish to say a few words with reference to the fruit industry. In the northern part of my riding we have one of the most promising fruit districts to be found in the province of Ontario. Situated as it is at the southern end of Lake Huron, it is generally conceded to have equal advantages to those of the Niagara district. Hence
1	think it is important that this matter
should be gone into a little more fully. When we have proper transportation facilities and proper protection, I am satisfied that the fruit industry of our country will grow and increase as it should. Thousands of barrels of apples rotted under the trees in my riding during the last season simply because the transportation facilities were not what they should be, and because the protection to Canadian fruit was not sufficient to prevent fruit coming in from foreign countries. With reference to the adulteration of jams and jellies to which reference has been made, I would like to call the minister's attention to bulletin 96 of the Inland Revenue Department for 1903, which states that the analysis of jams and jellies selected indiscriminately over the Dominion showed the following results :	raspberry jam-genuine
2	; doubtful 1; adulterated, 16 ; total 19. Strawberry jam,-genuine, one; doubtful, one ; adulterated, 17. Total, 19. Plum jam, -genuine, 3 ; doubtful, 1 ; adulterated, 8. Total, 12. Peach jam,-genuine, none ; doubtful, 2 ; adulterated, 5. Total, 7. Miscellaneous,-genuine, none ; doubtful, none ; adulterated, 2. Jellies,-genuine, 8 ; doubt-

ful, none; adulterated, 7. Showing that out of 74 varieties, only 14 were genuine. When we consider that the adulteration to a large extent is by means of turnips, which can be purchased at about $6 a ton, I am sure the hon. minister will readily see the importance of making a more thorough investigation of this subject than he has done. As regards the distribution of the bulletins, I wish to again impress on the hon. minister the importance of a more genera] distribution, and of giving to the public a short synopsis at least of the analysis of the jams and fruits that are canned in our country, showing the results of their analysis. And also information regarding the quantity brought into the country from outside. Take for instance canned preserves, jellies, jams, &c., there were imported in nine months, in 1904, $147,256 worth, or about $200,000 worth of these goods coming to our country per annum. 1 sincerely trust that the hon. minister will try and provide a remedy for this. We can grow the finest fruits in this country, and it has been proven within the last year that a great quantity of our fruits never reached the market and are not likely to so long as this heavy importation goes on. Take for instance the green fruits imported into Canada, in 1903 they amounted in value to $1,033,115, leaving out of question the dried fruits. I merely call the hon. minister's attention to these matters in order to impress upon him the importance of having the bulletins showing the adulteration of food distributed more largely, and also of making more public the amount of foreign goods in this line that are coming into our country.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: As regards the adulteration of raspberry and strawberry jams, as I explained this afternoon, we collected samples last year and found in many instances that there were violations of the Adulteration Act. In some instances the berries were not used at all and glucose was used instead of sugar. With regard to the imports, of course, in the amount mentioned by my hon. friend are included fruits, such as bananas and oranges which are not grown in this country, and dried fruits.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: I did not include any dried fruits.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: In any event I have no control over the importation of these goods as we cannot prevent their importation by the application of the Adulteration Act. We intend to take an aggressive policy with regard to the carrying out of this law and to spread the information among the public of the results of the analysis, so that the people may know whether the goods they are buying are genuine or not.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: Would it be too much to ask the hon. gentleman to ex-Mr. ARMSTRONG.
elude vegetables altogether out of the jams and jellies made in our country ?


John Barr: Did you find any turnips in them ?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: We did not discover any vegetables.


John Barr: They have been found, it is Said, by the analysts.


George Eulas Foster: Before this item passes, I wish to refer to two or three things that have been impressing themselves on my mind while listening to this discussion. In the first place, we are spending $30,000 per year, and it does not seem as if we were getting an adequate result in so far as the two chief things are concerned-first, the punishing of those who are guilty, and secondly, the dissemination of the results of these analysis by the department so that the people might be educated, and thus a general interest of self protection aroused which would help the department to get rid of these adulterators. You have an analytical department at Ottawa which costs $8,000 or $9,000 per year and which seems to be pretty well equipped, then you have outside resident analysts in the different cities who are available for the purpose of analysing the samples of food which may be put into their hands. You further have your inspector of food to whom a certain amount of money is paid, both as salary and travelling expenses. I suppose a good deal of analysis is done at the request of persons who send samples to the headquarters at Ottawa.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Yes, to some extent.


George Eulas Foster: That they do simply for their own information. Are they charged a fee ?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Yes.


George Eulas Foster: Well, that does not amount to much. A man thinks there is adulteration and sends the sample for his own satisfaction, pays his fee, gets the analysis and uses it for whatever it is worth. But the analysing that is done for the purpose of detecting and punishing the adulteration of food is done mainly at the head office and by these local analysts. No less a sum than $30,000 is spent.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: We did not spend as much last year.


George Eulas Foster: Well, that is the vote you are taking.
Mr. BRODEUR, Last year a vote was taken for $30,000 and we spent $20,900.


George Eulas Foster: Then the minister did not do his duty last year, because we have had him acknowledging to-night that there is a great deal of adulteration. When parliament gave him $30,000 to detect and prevent adulteration, he sat down quietly and

only spent $20,000 of it. There is an economy which is laudable, but there is another which, in the face of a grave danger like this, is just the opposite. The aggressiveness which my hon. friend speaks about animated him but very little last year since he did not even spend the money put at his disposal.


Mr.   BRODETJR@: I was only there a few months.


George Eulas Foster: What I spoke of refers to the department. Is the department doing what it ought to do with reference to these analysts in outside cities ? It gives a retaining fee of $200 and an allowance for office rent, apparatus and material, of about as much more. There is an initial expense of about $400 in each case. You have these analysts in Halifax, Montreal, Toronto, Victoria, Quebec, London, Winnipeg and Ottawa. When you incur this initial expense, it seems to me poor economy not to utilize the staff you thus retain. Now, what does the department do? In Halifax the officer retained analysed only 60 or 70 samples ; in Montreal about the same ; in Toronto about the same ; in Victoria only 26. In Quebec there was the initial expense, yet not a single analysis was made, so that the money spent was absolutely useless. In London only 9 samples were analysed. In Winnipeg the samples analysed number only 28. In Ottawa they gave the retaining fee, the office rent, the allowance for apparatus and material, yet did not call upon Dr. Valade to analyse a single sample during the year. Now, if these are the facts-and I suppose it will not be denied

we see that the department went to large expense to retain men and provide apparatus and material for the analysis of food, yet had not sprawl enough to have analyses actually made. And yet adulteration is rife in this country, as the minister has acknowledged He says he is determined to make an aggressive campaign against it. But though these manufacturers have been adulterating food, and are still adulterating, the department has not used, to any great extent, the apparatus and men at its disposal for the prevention of this adulteration. Then as to the food inspectors, the same remark applies. The department incurs the initial expense for salary and fees. It lets these officers travel a little, but not enough to collect many samples. There is a yearly expense of about $4,000 for these officers, yet the number of samples they have collected is very small. The minister will see what I am driving at-that if he is going to continue spending $20,000 in this kind of thing and have an establishment, he ought to go further and make his Initial expenditure effective, even if a little more money must be spent. The minister now is like a gentleman who has an immense battery and with ammunition ready, but never loading or firing his guns, though the enemy are there and ready to be slaughtered-and deserving to be slaughtered, as he himself admits. This is a friendly criticism, and it is spoken in the hope that the minister will utilize the machinery he has provided to put down the great evil of adulteration of food. As to the education part of it, the distribution of 1,000 copies of each of twelve bulletins will not do it at all. Could not more of these be sent out with a view to arousing public interest ? No man wants to buy food that is adulterated and not worth the money that he pays for it. Yet nineteen-twentieths of the people have no idea but that they are buying good food. One way to get rid of adulteration is to arouse the intelligent interest of the consuming people to the fact that they are buying food that is either injurious or not worth what it costs them. The minister will do something now with the newspapers. I think that is a good move. An idea that suggested itself to me was that members of the House would probably be glad to assist in this distribution. If members knew that these bulletins were available for distribution, many would be glad to make up lists of people in their constituencies to whom they would like to send things, and who would be interested in the facts contained in these documents. In that way two or three hundred people might be reached in every constituency, and, with over two hundred members of the House taking an interest in it, the distribution would be very wide and, probably, very effective. Then the schools might be utilized and the boards of trade might be utilized. I should think that secretaries of boards of trade would be glad to distribute these bulletins. The best of trade is honest trade, and, beyond doubt, legitimate traders would be in favour of stopping adulteration and, in the general interest of trade, have nothing sold purporting to be pure food that was not actually pure. For my part, I have no objection to men selling or buying a mixed article, provided it is not sold under a false name. I believe that the prevention of adulteration of food is one of the most important subjects we can take up among the minor subjects in connection with our public policy. We had a discussion the other day on the prevention of tuberculosis. The carrying out of the reform in that direction would save life. The prevention of the sale of adulterated food saves life and promotes health. If the government is going to take this matter up at all, it ought to take it up with energy and purpose. It ought to terrify the evil-doer and arouse the victims to a sense of what is going on in the way of dissimulating, under false names, what I dare say in many cases are very noxious articles of food.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: I am glad that this discussion is taking place with regard to the adulteration of food. When I came into the department, I tried to acquaint myself as much as possible with this question, and

became much interested in it, and I have ever since been studying the best means of carrying out this very important law. There is no doubt that the adulteration of food is a very serious evil in this country. I trust that it is being gradually lessened, but at the same time if we do not continue to put forth efforts to stamp it out, it will become very serious again. I understand how important it is that we should take every means to prevent this evil spreading. My hon. friend has mentioned the fact that very few samples have been sent to our district analysts during the last year, and he argues therefrom that we have not done our duty. He must not forget, however, that most of the analyses, perhaps seventy-five per cent of the analyses that have been made during the past year, were made at the head office in Ottawa, instead of being made by the district analysts. It has been found very convenient indeed to have the analyses made here instead of by the district analysts, who are generally occupied with their own business. Take for example a doctor who has to look after his clients, he cannot devote the time which he ought to take in making an analysis of the samples which are sent to him. Perhaps some other analysts are in the same position. Then it has frequently been found that it was better to send the samples here to be analysed by the head office in Ottawa. Moreover, we have in many instances found different results from analyses made of the same article in different parts of the country; an analysis in the west may not give the same results as an analysis in the east though the article is the same. There is another thing to be considered, and which has been pressed upon my attention. Some of these officers do not devote much time to that business, and occasionally they get the analysis done by some one else. ' But we have to pay these district analysts a certain amount for each sample they analyse, besides the retaining fee which is given them. This makes it very expensive, much more expensive than to have the same samples analysed by our officers in Ottawa. The analysis made here does not cost anything, because the officers are paid a yearly salary; Mr. McGill, for instance, gets $1,800 or $2,000, and some others a lesser amount. So the Auditor General's Report does not give a fair idea of the number of samples which have been analysed during the year, because a great many other analyses are made besides those made by the district analysts. I have already mentioned that about seventy-five per cent of all the samples are analysed here at the head office of which no record is made in the Auditor General's Report. 1 may repeat what I have already said, that I intend to pursue a very aggressive policy with regard to the adulteration of foods, i have had several communications with boards of trade and with the Canadian Manufacturers' Association, which latter organization Mr. BRODEUR.
is taking a great deal of interest in this question. They have been good enough to mention the fact in their reports that we are trying to do our best to repress this evil, and it is my intention to pursue that policy rigorously.


George Eulas Foster: That is all right so far as it goes, and that brings me to what I had in my mind but did not speak of before. You never can get as authoritative-an analysis from one of your district analysts as you can from your central authority here. You must be better equipped here than any district analyst can be, with all your skill, and your knowledge, and your accumulation of experience. If I were living in a distant part of Canada and wanted an analysis made, I would send the sample to the central office here rather than to the local analyst, who might be busy with his own affairs. Then there is the cost of transporting all these samples back and forth, there is constant communication between them and Ottawa. Why in the world with your central laboratory here in Ottawa, should you pay a retaining fee to the district analysts and these allowances, with $100 rent for the office, and his apparatus, and cost of material, when you have right under your nose, in your own central organization, ail these things much better equipped ? The amount that you spend on these men far distant for retaining fees would more than pay ail the expenses of transit of your samples from these distant parts here to Ottawa, and the communications that take place. It seems to me the best method would be to abolish all these outside offices, whose work can only be partial and ineffective, and cannot have the authority of the central analysis. Do all your analyses at the central laboratory, and you would thereby save a good deal of money which now seems to be spent without much result. I am not saying anything against these district analysts. This practice has grown up with time. A man is justified in taking a retaining fee if he finds a department which is willing to give it to him. But the whole question is, having so much money, what is the best way to expend it, and it does not seem to me it is the best way, while you have a properly equipped laboratory here and able to do the work, that you should have these outlying offices where the business must be indifferently well done under the best circumstances, and where little of the work is done.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: With regard to these district analysts, I am inclined to take very much the same view as the hon. gentleman. In fact I may mention that several vacancies have occurred during the last year that we have not found it advisable to fill. In Quebec, for instance, I think the analyst has resigned and he has not been replaced, the analyst in St. Hyacinthe has not been

replaced, so also in Winnipeg. I think there are four vacancies now.


George Eulas Foster: I would make about five more.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Well, it is very hard sometimes to dismiss men who have been for many years in the service. Take Dr. Valade here in Ottawa, I think he has been nearly twenty-five years in the service. Perhaps the time has not arrived to do that, particularly since some of these men were appointed before this government came into power. I will take into consideration the suggestion that has been made. The hon. gentleman sees what I have done so far. I have refused to replace officers although I was pressed in several instances to do so when vacancies occurred for that very reason. I have not had much experience, because I have been only a short time in the department, but I am inclined to the belief that the suggestion which has been made by the hon. gentleman is absolutely correct and it is one which I have followed in so far as vacancies are concerned.


George Eulas Foster: If my hon. friend does not wish to act harshly with these officers keep them at work until they die.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: But they cost money.


George Eulas Foster: They do.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Suppose that instead of sending samples to Mr. Macfarlane we sent them to Dr. Valade, we would have to pay Dr. Valade for each sample analysed. It is better to have them analysed by Mr. Macfarlane.


Mr. BLACK.: I would like to endorse everything that has been said by the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster) in regard to the centralization of these samples. In the medical profession we adopt a rule like that in almost every province. I know that in my own province we do. While medical men, of later years, are equipped with the microscope and a great many of them make a study of bacteriology, yet the best and nicest way is to send to the provincial bacteriologists for our analysis. In cases of diphtlieretie membrane and in the finer tests of urinalysis, we do not depend on the microscope or the tests of individual members of the profession however well we may think of our ability, because we know that at the central office greater expense has been gone to with the object of providing finer and nicer instruments and better results are obtained. I think that in the case of adulterated foods which is one of the most important questions that this House can consider, a question that affects the health of almost every family that buys these foods- and tons and tons are bought every year- it is very important that steps should be taken to find out to what extent adulteration is practised, and I am sure that no better
step could be taken than by centralizing this service and providing it with the finest equipment that can be obtained. The adoption of this plan would make the service much more effective and better in every way.


Mr. COCKSHUTT.: Mr. Chairman, I wish to put one or two questions to the hon. minister of Inland Revenue in connection with this item. The first one I would like to ask is how it is that so many analyses are made of products obtained from retail dealers when the department could attack the fountain head and find out what was in these foods without having to go to thousands and tens of thousands of retailers throughout the country ? The factories that turn out jams are very few in number, they can be counted on the fingers of one hand, or at most of two hands. Eight or ten analyses would show what these jams contain. Why should each retailer who is selling the products of these factories, the contents of which he does not know, be subjected to this analysis and test when the analysis could just as well be made of the article when it leaves the. factory ? It has the maker's name on it. The maker should be held responsible for the ingredients that are in the article named. Take the question of spices, for instance ; spices are generally put up in cans or packages. The man who puts them up is the man who should know what they contain. If he does not know he does not know his business. Why should every retailer throughout the length and breadth of the Dominion be subjected to having his spices analysed, when the number of dealers in spices could be counted on the fingers of one's hand, or two hands ? Why should a thousand or ten thousand samples be taken and analysed when by going to the makers or those who mix or produce these spices the whole thing could be shut off at the fountain head ? It appears to me that the department covers too wide a field in endeavouring to shut off the stream at its outlet instead of endeavouring to shut it off at its source, because it is a well known fact that the principal place at which adulteration takes place is the factory. As to the matter of jams, this is a subject, of course, which is rather sweet, but to return to them I would like to ask the hon. minister if the basis of jam is turnips or carrots, it is classed as adulterated under the laws that govern the department. I think I am in a position to state" that the basis of American jams is the articles named. Turnips particularly constitute the basis of jams. The turnip" is a harmless article, but any one can see that when jams are sold at seven cents a pound, as they are mostly, they must be constituted of something other than fruit and sugar, because the labour, the package that contains the jam and the fruit and sugar cannot be brought together, put into the package and sold for seven cents a pound.

i
It is a self-evident fact that there is something else besides fruit and sugar in the jam that brings down the price. I have been consulting the returns in regard to the export of turnips which go to prove that in American factories these articles enter largely into the production of jams. During the past year there were exported from Canada, 1,085,000 bushels of turnips of a value of $107,000. Of this quantity, 1,067,000 bushels went to the United States. These, I am informed and I think correctly informed, are sent almost invariably to the jam factories of the United States. That may be a lamentable fact, but nevertheless I believe it is a fact. Now, we re-import from the United States a large quantity of jam and jellies, which, no doubt, to a considerable extent, contain these ingredients. I would like to ask the hon. minister, if, when these goods are analysed, the fact that they contain turnips or carrots is sufficient to bar them as adulterated foods. They are certainly not what they are represented to be, and if they are not what they are represented to be it would appear to be the duty of the department, if they want to put into general use only pure foods, to stop all goods that will not pass the test at the border. They should not be allowed to come into the country. You should not then attack the retail dealer who perhaps had nothing to do with the importation, who has had nothing to do with the making of them and who is not able to tell of what they are constituted. Therefore, I submit this proposition that any adulteration that takes place in the country takes place in the factory or the institution that puts up these goods or manufactures them. That is one point. The next point is that if it is sought to bring into the country articles which are impure, the proper place to stop them is at the border line. They should not be allowed to come into the country, but they should be stopped when they are being imported. That would not then throw the onus upon thousands and ten thousands of retail dealers throughout Canada when they actually do not know what the goods contain and who cannot correctly find out without going to a great deal of trouble. I submit these points to the hon. gentleman's attention. 1 believe that these are facts. If they are not, I would like him to point out to me wherein I have misstated the facts. I hope that in the future the department will attend more to confining their efforts to the source of the trouble instead of attacking the various branches of trade. 1 think the hon. gentleman would be conferring a great benefit upon the trade of the country if he would prohibit factories that offend against the law by manufacturing that class of food and turn it out, although they do it under a false name, rather than attack the retailer who is perfectly innocent and knows nothing about the contents. He is the man who generally has to suffer and Mr. COCKSHUTT.
the manufacturer seems to escape. I commend these points to the hon. gentleman's attention, and I hope he will reply to them.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: With regard to the collection of samples from the retailers and the wholesalers, I agree, to a certain extent, with the remarks made by the hon. gentleman (Mr. Cockshutt). I gave instructions some time ago that in future we should collect these samples on a larger scale from the manufacturers and the wholesalers. We find, however, a very great difficulty in obtaining samples from the manufacturers. They do not pretend to have them for sale, and we have some difficulty in collecting samples from them, but the suggestion made is certainly a good one, and I think that instead of going only to the retailers, we should also collect samples, when it is possible, from the manufacturers and the wholesalers, because if we succeed ill impressing upon the manufacturer the fact that if he sells adulterated goods it will he published broadcast ; then, I suppose, he will become much more anxious to sell only pure goods. We must, at the same time, remember that the wholesalers are not absolutely free from blame, because it happens sometimes that after the goods have left the hands of the wholesalers or manufacturers, they are mixed up with other materials, and the retailer then becomes responsible ; but we must not forget that when we collect samples from the retailer, he gives us the name of the manufacturer, which, as my hon. friend may see in the report which he has before him, is also published. If the manufacturer has sold adulterated goods to the retailer, he is exposed to having his name published as it is in that bulletin. It has been said also that turnips are used on a large scale in the manufacture of jams. The chief analyst informs me that he has never found any turnips in the goods that he has analysed. I do not pretend to say that they are not used.


John Barr: Does he say that in goods either from the United States, Canada or Great Britain, he has never found any turnips ?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: What we have found is particularly apple pulp instead of strawberries or raspberries.


John Barr: But in the jams ?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: It is apple pulp which the chief analyst informs me he has found most in the jams that are adulterated. At the same time, this is certainly a violation of the law, because when I buy strawberry jam I am supposed to have strawberries, and if, instead of finding strawberries, I simply find apple pulp, to which has been added salicylic acid, coal tar dye and some other things like that, it is certainly a violation of the law. Jam is supposed to contain fruit, sugar and water, and

we sometimes find glucose instead of sugar, eoal tar dye, salicylic acid and apple pulp. It is a very serious thing that manufacturers should put on the market goods in that condition, and even try to sell those goods as pure strawberry jam. I think the time has arrived when we should adopt an aggressive policy to prevent such things being sold in the future.


William Foster Cockshutt: With regard to the turnips, it was to the American trade particularly that I referred, not to the Canadian packers. I am not in a position to state what Canadian packers use.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: If we have samples directly from the wholesalers, I think we would reach that violation of the law. Thai is why I thought, in order to reach the source of the evil, we should go to the manufacturer and the wholesaler.


John Barr: I thought my hon. friend told us there were no roots or turnips in the jams analysed ?


Mr.   BRODETJR@: I thought my hon. friend referred to the goods manufactured in this country. I do not know that they are using turnips in the United States.


Francis Ramsey Lalor: I would like to ask the minister how he manages in connection with imported jams, catsups, &c., from the United States ? How do you treat them in regard to adulteration ? I may say that the gentlemen who are talking about turnips in jams are not very well posted in the jam business. I think that when the minister tells us that apple pulp is more generally used, he is nearer the truth than the gentlemen who talk of turnips.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: We simply reach them in the same way as we reach the Canadian product; an American sample is just as liable to be condemned and declared adulterated as a Canadian.


John Barr: I think it is a most unfortunate thing for us in this country to put the screws on the Canadian manufacturers and allow the Americans to bring in goods that are not pure. We thought we had it from the minister that there were no I'oots found in the American importations that were analysed. I understand from a good authority that the Americans are using roots, and that they are underselling our Canadian manufacturers in different lines of this business, with the result that the Canadians are almost going out of the business, whilst the Americans are sending in their impure goods. I contend that the importations, even from the British islands, and particularly from the United States, should be very carefully analysed, and it should be placed beyond a doubt that we are not receiving from the American, side, competing with our manufacturers, impure goods'; imported goods should be eyen more carefully analysed than those manufactured in this country.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: What is the result of the examination of goods from foreign countries ?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: As far as jams and jellies are concerned, as I said this afternoon. all the goods which were imported from Great Britain were found genuine. The chief analyst informs me that there were very few samples of American goods which were sent to be analysed, and in fact his impression is that there is a very small quantity of American jam used.


John Barr: Have many American goods been carefully examined ?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: A few were analysed. The chief analyst is not very sure whether some have been examined, but, at all events, we have collected samples, and where we find American goods we certainly buy them to get them analysed just as we do the Canadian product.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: Let me call the minister's attention to the fact that $49,000 worth of these goods came from the United States. If only a very small quantity of these were analysed, it is very unfair to analyse the Canadian products so strictly. I might also call the minister's attention to the fact that of the $30,000 voted last year for the purpose of gathering and distributing information over $9,000 was not expended. Would it not be wise, after gathering the information, to spend part of that money in distributing it broadcast ? Then, I might ask the hon. minister if the officers of his department have the privilege of going into any factories in the country and examining food products ?
Mr. BRODEUR, Yes. The chief analyst has visited several factories in this country, and has also attended some congresses outside in order to meet American chemists and get information from them on the important question of analysing food products.


Mr.   L A LOR@: I am sorry that the hon. Minister of Customs is not in his place tonight when this interesting discussion is going on. I believe the chief cause of this trouble about adulteration is that there is not sufficient duty placed on the goods that are imported into Canada. If you sit down at almost any hotel table in this country, you will find that the catsup on that table is imported from the United States ; and the same thing applies largely to all other 'table condiments. That applies even more to the west than it does to the east. If the government will place a much higher duty on these American goods and then enforce the law against adulteration, I believe the Canadian manufacturers will be only too glad to give the Canadian people better and purer articles.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: If my hon. friend refers to the figures of the census, I think he

will find that the quantity of these goods imported does not at all compare with the quantity produced in the country. I know that considerable quantities are imported into the Northwest and British Columbia, but a very small quantity is imported into the eastern provinces, where the fruits are produced.


Mr.   L A LOR@: I may inform the hon. minister that over $200,000 worth of this class of goods were imported last year. Not one dollar's worth of these goods should be imported. They should be made in Canada, and they can be if the government will put a sufficient tariff on them.


Mr. AMES.: I would like to ask the minister a few questions. How many collectors in the employ of the department are giving their entire time to the collection of samples of articles supposed to be adulterated ?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: There is only one who is devoting all his time to that work. The others are excise officers. We have ten food inspectors.


Andrew B. Ingram: What is this man's name ?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Thomas Kidd.


Herbert Brown Ames: Are the samples collected by Mr. Kidd and the others who are partial inspectors, examined locally, or are they sent to the central bureau here ?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Most of the samples collected last year were sent to the central office here.


Herbert Brown Ames: Are the legal processes in regard to the adulteration of food initiated from here and carried on from here ?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Yes, instructions are given from the department here to take proceedings.


Herbert Brown Ames: How many proceedings have been taken during the past year ?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: No actions have been taken, but a large number of persons whose goods have been found to be adultered have paid the penalty imposed upon them. That penalty generally consists in the payment of the cost of the analysis, besides which we publish their names in the bulletin with the statement that their goods are adulterated. If they do not pay the cost of the analysis, then proceedings are instituted against them.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: About what is the cost of the analysis ?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: From $11 to $20.


Herbert Brown Ames: I certainly agree with the hon. member for North Toronto in advocating the strengthening of this department. With its present inadequate staff it seems to me that no work of a far-reaching character can be undertaken. Appar-Mr. BRODEUR.
ently the work is left in a large measure to the local municipalities, who are only able to make prosecutions when they can prove that the food which has been analysed by them contains something deleterious to public health, which is very difficult to prove. For this reason the local authorities are unable to proceed. The work of protecting the public against fraud in the way of adulterations should be carried on chiefly by the Inland Revenue Department, but that department is very inadequately equipped for the great work it has to do. Looking over the reports which have come from the various analysts located at Halifax, Montreal, Toronto, Victoria and elsewhere, I find that there are practically but three substances which these local analysts have analysed-fertilizers, syrup and milk.
The analysing of fertilizers may be very useful, but does not create protection to the public health, and it is a work which seems to me to belong more especially to the Department of Agriculture. As for the analysis of milk, most of our cities are provided with a better way for detecting impure milk than the government of Canada. In Montreal we have a perfectly adequate system and I think that our local board of health looks after this very carefully and thoroughly. I would commend to the hon. minister, if he has not already adopted the system, to follow the same system in obtaining samples for the department. Our inspectors in Montreal are authorized when they suspect that milk which is being sold or about to be sold is adulterated, to stop the vendor, take a certain quantity of milk from his can and put it into two bottles, which are then sealed in such a manner that the seal cannot be tampered with.. One bottle is left with the milkman and the other is brought to the department and analysed. If it is found that the milk is below standard, the case is taken into court, and if the accused is not satisfied with the verdict, he is entitled to produce his own bottle and have a second analysis made. It generally turns out that the second analysis is identical with the first, so that he is practically self convicted. There is a great amount of adulteration in many articles of food at present in Canada, as we have discovered through our local analyses in the board of health at Montreal. For example, large quantities of candies are sold which are coloured by matter that may not be injurious, but certainly is not helpful to public health. We have made frequent analyses of ketchups, and have found that almost any ketchup analysed would stain a cloth which was placed in it, showing that it must contain dye stuff of some character, which is certainly not good for the human system. Other analyses of food stuffs are of a similar character, but being only a local board we have found it very difficult to proceed against those who sold the adulterated goods unless we were prepared to prove that the adulteration rendered the com-

modifies injurious to the public health. Therefore, I would point out to the hon. minister that he has a very large field in which to operate, and if he can see his way clear to strengthen his department so that he may have inspectors to visit all parts of Canada and inspect not only the goods in process of manufacture but also samples of the goods in the packages, he will be conferring a great benefit on the community. Goods in the process of manufacture could be inspected by the same methods I have described in the ease of milk. Goods in packages bearing the name of the maker carry their own identification. I do not think there is any department that calls at present more lolidly for adequate enlargement so that the health of the people may be protected.


Mr. BERGERON.: There is one subject to which I would like to call the attention of the hon. minister and which I think is germane to the subject in hand. I refer to patent medicines. This country is infested with patent medicines more or less good. Is there any inspection of these when they are put on the market at first or are they inspected now and then? I have a case in mind which happened in the latter days of December in Montreal of some people who were almost poisoned by a medicine called Steam's headache powders. These powders are sold freely to any one who wants to Buy them in all the drug stores. They are, I Believe a most injurious medicine. They are supposed to be a very quick remedy for headaches, and must contain, I imagine, some very strong ingredients, and probably some poison. It is well that we should be very particular about the food we buy, but we should be still more particular about the medicines sold to the people and take some precautions to see that no medicine is likely to have a very injurious effect on those who use it. I would ask my hon. friend what protection, if any, he is prepared to give the public against patent medicines, which instead of doing good are doing harm ?


Mr.   BRODEDK@: There has been some agitation amongst physicians to have the packages or bottles containing patent medicines stamped with the formula of its contents. I may tell my hon. friend that there is a great difference of opinion on that point. We have the doctors on the one side and the druggists on the other. The druggists claim that that would be injurious to their trade. We are entitled under the law to collect samples of drugs and we do it very frequently, and when drugs are adulterated the same course is followed with regard to them as with regard to food.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: I know that the doctors and druggists are not at one on that question. Many doctors are opposed to patent medicines and would rather give their own remedies, but the druggists find a great profit in selling those medicines. But since
my hon. friend has all the machinery requisite in his department, would it not be possible for his chief analyst to have patent medicines collected and analysed and declare whether they are injurious or the reverse ?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: I am informed by the chief analyst that it would be very difficult to do that, so far as patent medicines are concerned, because as long as they correspond with the specifications it is almost impossible to declare them adulterated.


Mr.   L A LOR@: Would it not be possible to find out whether they are pure or adulterated before they are freed from the customs and when the entry is being made to take them out of customs?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: That might perhaps be a good plan, but it would require an army of officers connected with all the different ports to inspect samples of all the goods entered, I am sure it would be a very costly experiment.


Mr. CROCKET.: Has the department had any analyses made of fertilizers in New Brunswick? There are very serious complaints regarding the quality of fertilizers sold in that province. I have heard it said that farmers are very frequently defrauded, and if the department has any power to apply a remedy in the matter I would like to see that power exercised.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Under the law persons selling fertilizers are obliged to have them analysed every year, sending samples to the office here for that purpose. I should be surprised to learn that fertilizers are sold that are not being properly analysed.


Benjamin B. Gunn: In the case of a conviction, who is liable, the manufacturer or the wholesale dealer ?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: The man in whose possession the goods have been found and against whom conviction is secured. Any question between him and the manufacturer is a matter with which the department has nothing to do.


David Henderson: I would like again to refer to the question of the fertilizers in New Brunswick. Recently I had a conversation with a gentleman who resides in that province, and he informed me that it is a matter of very serious complaint in that province with the farmers that they are getting a very impure article, in fact, not at all what they ought to get for their money. I would like to know whether the department takes cognizance of this and whether analyses of fertilizers such as are there are made, and what the results are.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: The chief analyst tells me that no complaint has been made to the department concerning fertilizers sold in New Brunswick. But if the hon. gentleman

(Mr. Henderson) can give us information on the subject I shall be glad to look into the question.


David Henderson: I will give the minister privately the name of my informant.


Mr.   L A LOR@: I have looked up the report of trade and commerce for 1904, and I find that pickles, sauces and catsups have been imported to the amount of no less than $371,000.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: It is a pity that Canadians do not consume Canadian goods.


Mr.   L A LOR@: I quite agree with the minister, and I would go farther and say that it is a great pity that the government of this country does not put a duty upon these goods that would cause the Canadian goods to be consumed. But these adulterated goods are brought into the country and sold at such prices that our manufacturers cannot sell pure goods in competition with them, so, our manufacturers, to compete with this immense quantity of adulterated goods have to adulterate their own goods to a certain extent. The hon. member for York, N.B. (Mr. Crockett) has brought the matter of fertilizers before the House, and I am glad he has done it ? I do not believe that there is any commodity in which there is such a field for swindling the farmers as in fertilizers. The time has come when commercial fertilizers must b& used in this country. In the United States they are being used to an enormous extent. If there are any goods that ought to be analysed and in respect of which the people should be protected against fraud, they are commercial fertilizers.
Public .Works-chargeable to income-harbours and rivers-N. S., Apple river, wharf, $3,000.


Mr. PERLEY.: I would like to say a word in a general way about these wharfs before we go on with the item. I find, in my own experience, a good many wharfs are built in places where they are absolutely useless. I should be glad if the minister would give some promise that all these wharfs that he is going to ask votes for to-night will be such as can be of use to those engaged in navigation and not merely to please individuals residing or having interests in the locality. I would draw the minister's attention to the fact that some peculiar expenditures are made out of votes given for wharfs. In the Auditor General's Report, with reference to the harbour improvements in Glace bay, it appears that some of the money voted was used to construct an earth railway embankment and trestle approach to the coal pier and to put down a sufficient number of railway tracks tbereon for the accommodation of traffic. I find that the Auditor General makes comment upon this expenditure as not being properly made in accordance with the vote. I think his ob-Mr. BRODEUR.
jection is well taken, it looks as if the expenditure was made in the interest of one corporation there'; and money voted for the construction of a wharf should hardly have been used for such a purpose. I know there is a wharf across the river in Hull, I suppose it cost $40,000 or $50,000, but I do not think the minister will say that that expenditure was justified by the amount of traffic done on that wharf. I hope he will assure the committee that he is not going to ask us to vote money to spend on wharfs that are going to be of so little use as that.


Charles Smith Hyman: As regards the policy of the government in the erection of wharfs, I can assure the hon. geutleman that the department will take the greatest care in the expenditure of money. The circumstances under which wharfs are being constructed may be very different in one part of the country from those in another part. A wharf that might not be deemed necessary in the province of Quebec in a certain place where communication is largely by railway, might be necessary in another part of the country, on the great lakes or on the ocean, in Nova Scotia or New Brunswick, where there is no railway communication ; the expenditure might be justified in one case and not in another. In the particular case to which the hon. gentleman refers, I suppose, the Dominion Coal Company wanted to erect a wharf, and a wharf was also desired in the public interest. Therefore we made a business arrangement with the coal company, they erecting the wharf and we paying a certain amount of the cost. In that case we made provision towards building a wharf, because we knew that the public interest would be served by it. The company got what they want and the public are getting what they want from the construction of this wharf.


George Halsey Perley: The explanation of the minister in that particular case seems to be satisfactory. I believe that the present acting minister has every intention of confining these expenditures to public purposes. I would like to ask him if the government has any policy with regard to the building of these wharfs, where to place them, and how much to expend upon them? I notice that last year there was a wharf built at a place called Lake Nominingue, in the province of Quebec. Now that is an inland lake somewhere about a hundred miles from the Ottawa river. There is nothing there I know of that the Department of Public Works has anything to do with. That is one reason why I ask if the government has any settled policy in building wharfs. I can understand the building of a wharf on the Ottawa river, which is a boundary between two provinces,, but I cannot understand why the Department of Public Works should build a wharf at this little lake called Nominingue, in a little place away back in the bush. It is the terminus of a railway, it is true, but at the

173a
same time it is an entirely provincial matter.


Charles Smith Hyman: What is the cost of that wharf ? Have you got it there ?


George Halsey Perley: $2,000 or $3,000. I am asking what the Dominion government has to do with building a wharf of that kind in the back woods ?


Charles Smith Hyman: The hon. gentleman is entirely mistaken if he thinks we should only build wharfs on boundaries between provinces, or on the great lakes. It is the duty of the Public Works Department to build wharfs wherever they are required. That has been the policy of the Dominion government for many years. The hon. gentleman will understand that we cannot lay down any hard and fast rule with regard to these matters. As I have already tried to explain, a policy that might fit one province would not fit another. Those of us who are living where railway communication is easy must not forget that there are other places where there is no communication at all except by water. It is the duty of the government to take all these matters into consideration. We cannot lay down a hard and fast policy, I do not think the hon. gentleman himself could suggest any policy that would be better than to make expenditures wherever they are required in the public interest. We must consider every case on its merits, inquire into the character of the work, the cost of the work, and try to meet the needs of the people so far as' we can according to the funds at our disposal.


Mr. MORIN.: I believe the hon. minister said that wharfs are built wherever they are needed. I can tell him that he is very much mistaken. Would he tell me what is going to be done with regard to the pier at a place called Disraeli, in the county of Wolfe, for which $5,000 was voted last year ? Does the minister know anything about that pier, or does he care to know ? If he wants to know the history of that pier I will be glad to tell him.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Go on.


Jean-Baptiste Morin: At that place there is a small stream flowing into a river. There is a dam below the mouth of the stream, and when the gates are shut the water rises in the dam and overflows into the creek, which is called Black creek. The people built a bridge over that creek some fifteen years ago. Last year the member for the county of Wolfe, I suppose it was that hon. gentleman, began to move in the matter. I must say that I honour that hon. gentleman's spunk. He got this government to vote $5,000 to build a pier, and that pier, I suppose, was intended to accommodate a steamboat. Now, Sir, where is the boat ?


Charles Smith Hyman: I give it up.


Jean-Baptiste Morin: There is no use for a boat, and there is no water to float a boat. I can tell the minister what was done. The people who live there are joking over this matter. The municipality gave a contract to parties to fill up this creek from one bank to the other, about 600 feet, with stone and earth, in order to make a roadway. Now that is the way that certain individuals blindfold the government. It is perfectly right; if I could blindfold the government myself I would do it, because municipalities have as much right to get help from the government as railway or steamboat companies have. I asked for a bridge once and I was refused. If you ask for $5,000 to build a bridge they will not listen to you. But, the hon. gentleman .lust pulls the wool over the government's eyes, asks for a vote and it is given to him. If the hon. minister will send his engineer there he would be able to ascertain what the conditions are. I suppose the money will not be paid until the work is done. If he sends his engineer there to oversee the work he will find nothing but a pile of stones. That is only a sample of it.


Charles Smith Hyman: I may say that the items under discussion now are wharfs in Nova Scotia. I have no objection, of course


Jean-Baptiste Morin: I do not blame you.


Charles Smith Hyman: I have no objection, of course, to the discussion wandering far afield from the subject before the chair. As to the particular subject brought up by the hon. gentleman, I have no notes. Wharfs in Quebec will be reached in due time, and 1 would be very glad to give whatever explanation is possible in regard to the awful state of affairs the hon. gentleman has been depicting.


Andrew B. Ingram: In view of the fact that the leader of the opposition (Mr. R. L. Borden) is absent, and as he is familiar with the Nova Scotia items, I would suggest to the hon. Minister of Public Works that we take up the Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick items, because, by doing so, we will make better headway than if we attempt to continue the consideration of the Nova Scotia items.


Charles Smith Hyman: Why ?


Andrew B. Ingram: For the simple reason that hon. members on this side of the House are not well acquainted witli the requirements of Nova Scotia. Unfortunately, our friends on the other side of the House have assisted in preventing us from getting our friends from that province to assist us in the discussion of these items.


William Mulock: When does the hon. gentleman expect to get any of his friends from Nova Scotia to help him to discuss these items ?


Mr. LEFURGEY.: We are prepared to discuss the Prince Edward Island items.


Charles Smith Hyman: If hon. gentlemen opposite will allow these items to pass, I will be very glad to allow one item to stand, on which any discussion can take place. The Department of Public Works have a large number of estimates to pass. I am sure I have tried to meet the convenience of hon. gentlemen opposite as far as possible in putting through items. If they will allow these items to go through, we will allow one item to stand on which any discussion can take place, and then we will take up the votes from Prince Edward Island.


Alfred Alexander Lefurgey: The hon. gentleman might take up the Prince Edward Island items now, because the Prince Edward Island members are all here.


Charles Smith Hyman: I know several hon. members on this side of the House who stayed here at great personal inconvenience just for the purpose of being here when these estimates are under consideration. I notified them this afternoon at three o'clock, asking them to stay, and now that they are here, I am sure hon. gentlemen opposite will not press the request which they have made.


Andrew B. Ingram: Do we understand hon. members from Nova Scotia are going to take part in the discussion of these items ? I have no recollection of anything of that kind ever having occurred in the House. I think it is really unreasonable to expect the opposition to take these items up in view of the absence of the hon. leader of the opposition, who is the only man who understands the requirements of Nova Scotia.


Charles Smith Hyman: It is a piece of nonsense for me to attempt to pass these items if hon. gentlemen opposite persist in their objection. If they say that they do not want the items to pass, it is impossible for me to go on with my estimates.


Andrew B. Ingram: Has the hon. gentleman under his hand the information in regard to Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick ?


Charles Smith Hyman: Yes.


Andrew B. Ingram: In that case, I think we would make better headway by proceeding to the consideration of these items.


Charles Smith Hyman: There is no doubt of it. We will not make any headway at all if hon. gentlemen opposite simply say that they will not go on with these estimates. I think, considering the number of estimates the department has to put through and the very fair offer I have made, that we should leave one item on which all the items may be discussed, hon. gentlemen might consent to the passing of these items.


John Barr: We do not know any item to hold them up on.


William Mulock: 


Charles Smith Hyman: Hold them up on any item you like, and discuss any of them afterwards.


John Barr: The hon. minister tells us that they have no policy whatever in so far as wharfs in Nova Scotia are concerned. They have built them here, there and everywhere, and they do not intend to gite us any information in regard to them. We are unfamiliar with these estimates, but the hon. gentleman wants to run them through. We have our forces here from Prinee Edward Island, and we are prepared to go on with the Prince Edward Island items, and intelligently vote on them if a vote is required. We cannot hold ourselves down to one item, because we might pass the item in regard to which we require an explanation. Surely the hon. gentleman must have some policy in regard to wharfs in Nova Scotia, if they are to be anything more than local works or works of general advantage to the whole Dominion.


William Mulock: My hon. friend (Mr. Barr) hardly understands the suggestion of my hon. friend the Minister of Public Works. My hon. friend the Minister of Public Works did not mean that the reservation of one item should confine the discussion to that one item. All these items are embraced in one resolution, and if you allow one item to stand, then the resolution as a whole will stand, and when subsequently he moved that the last item be carried the whole of these items will be open for discussion. That is what he proposes, so that my hon. friend does not have to pick out any one of them. He will be able to discuss any one of these items.


John Barr: We are just where we were. Here is item 131, which we ask to be allowed to stand, but that request has been refused.


Mr. LANCASTER.: It seems to me that the suggestion of my hon. friend (Mr. Ingram) is a fair and reasonable one. I cannot see that the suggestion of the hon. Minister of Public Works, as emphasized by the hon. Postmaster General, does the government a bit of good. It is not the same thing to have a discussion on one item when it goes through at some future day, because in five or ten minutes the whole thing is over. The only hon. gentleman on this side who has any knowledge of Nova Scotia is the hon. leader of the opposition, who is absent tonight. It is well known why he is absent, and I do not think it is right or fair for the government to pass these items in regard to Nova Scotia. The hon. leader of the opposition has bad an affliction in his family which the government must know of, and which has taken him away. He would be here except for that, and he is the only hon. gentleman on this side of the House who has any intimate knowledge of affairs in Nova Scotia. There is plenty of work for

this committee to do during the short time that we ought to continue to-night. We do not wish to be a party to obstructing the estimates of the bon. Minister of Public Works. We want to do this thing in a friendly way suitable to the convenience of hon. members, but the hon. leader of the opposition, being away, and the occasion of his being away being what it is, as is well known to the House, I think the hon. Minister of Public Works ought to comply with the request of my hon. friend (Mr. Ingram), who is the whip in charge of the opposition to-night in the House, and who, I think, is making a very reasonable proposition. We ought not to attempt to deal with any of the items in this resolution, but we should go on to the estimates for New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island.


Charles Smith Hyman: I do not wish to appear discourteous in any way, I am satisfied that we should go on with the New Bruns wick and Prince Edward Island items, but I feel, at the same time, that I have been really discourteous to hon. members on this side. The hon. member for East Elgin says that he has never heard the members on this side speak on these items. I am sure that the minister when putting through items should have the members for the constituencies with him to answer questions regarding the locality, the necessity for the work, &c. I do not see anything improper m that in any way ; it is the members' duty.


Andrew B. Ingram: If I have hurt the hon. gentleman's feelings, I am very sorry.


Charles Smith Hyman: My feelings are hurt-proof.


Hance James Logan: I must protest against this proceeding in the House. There are 18 members from Nova Scotia.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: All on one side.


Hance James Logan: That is your fault, not ours. There are 17 members from Nova Scotia in the House I belieye, to-night. I know that three or four of them intended leaving to-day for their homes, but they were kept here tonight because these items were coming up. We are not like the Ontario and Quebec members who can go home every week end; we are kept here from the opening to the end of the session. My hon. friend from Elgin is not serious in saying that a member supporting the government should not be here. Take for instance the very first item that for Apple river. Apple river happens to be in my constituency and the hon leader of the opposition (Mr. R. L. Borden) does not know any more about Apple river than does the hon. member for East Elgin.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Oh, yes he does.


Hance James Logan: He has never been within 50 miles of Apple river.
55}


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Say that when he is
here.


Hance James Logan: Pardon me, I happen to be the representative of the county, and know very well its requirements ; I know whether the wharf should be built there, I know the people living there and I do not think that any one could have a better knowledge of the locality, nor could give better reasons why the wharf should be constructed than the representative of the county, your humble servant. We have stayed here to discuss these items and to give the explanations which will be called for from the opposite side. Is it fair and reasonable that simply because the leader of the opposition is not here


John Barr: My hon. friend does not say that he should be here.


Hance James Logan: The circumstances under which he is away are painful, and we do not like to press the point quite so much as we otherwise might, but, at the same time, I think the minister has made a reasonable proposition, that we should take up some items, reserving, if you like, those for Halifax county, which the leader of the opposition formerly represented, and with which he is familiar, but do let us go on and discuss these items to-night and be courteous on both sides. We all know the painful circumstances under which the leader of the opposition is absent.
Mr. INGRAA1. The Minister of Public Works has no cause for complaint so far as his estimates are concerned ; we have treated him liberally.
Mr. HYA1AN. I am not kicking,


Hance James Logan: He is not kicking, we are kicking.


Andrew B. Ingram: I think the suggestion we have made is a reasonable one, and I know that so far as Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick are concerned we will make very good headway. It is a well known fact that the more members that are present, the better progress is made with the estimates.
Higgin s shore pier-works of reconstruction and repairs, $1,000.


Alfred Alexander Lefurgey: Will the hon. gentleman explain ?


Angus Alexander McLean: Would the minister explain ?


Charles Smith Hyman: It is a revote. Ordinary repairs to the existing wharf.


Alfred Alexander Lefurgey: What work has to be done ?


Charles Smith Hyman: Facing timber 200 ; cross-1 ties, 1,000 feet; fender-piles, iron, 1} tons ;

stone lifting on side, gravel filling on roadway. It is purely departmental.
Miminegash-extension of breakwater and crlbwork revetment at' inner end, $4,000.


Charles Smith Hyman: This work is purely departmental work that the officers of the department recommended as being necessary. There is a crihwork revetment 120 feet by 12 feet wide and 6 feet high. There is an extension of the breakwater outward past a shoal, represented to be necessary to make the harbour safe of approach.


Alfred Alexander Lefurgey: Will it be done by tender or by day work ?


Charles Smith Hyman: The chances are by day work.


Alfred Alexander Lefurgey: Is it the policy of the department in all repairs to breakwaters and wharfs and buildings to proceed by day work instead of by tender ?


Mr HYMAN.: The hon. gentleman will understand that there is great difficulty in small works of this kind in getting any one to tender, the difficulty being that the repairs that are necessary cannot be ascertained until probably some of the planks are removed. Within the last few days I had a case of calling for tenders for a work of this kind for a large amount, and it was impossible to have tenders because we could not give specifications; it simply said ' for renewal and contractors either refused to -tender or made their tenders upon the basis of an entirely new work. The policy is the same as that which has always been carried out by the Department of Public Works in works of this character.


Alexander Martin: Will this sum put it in good repair ?


Charles Smith Hyman: That is the report of the officers of the department.
McPherson's cove, wharf, $9,000.


John Barr: Is that by tender ?


Charles Smith Hyman: That is by tender ; it is under contract at the present time. This is to complete.
New London-repairs to breakwaters, &c., $3,500.


Charles Smith Hyman: Merely repairs to the existing wharf.


Alexander Martin: This is a very important wharf on the north side where harbours are not very numerous and where they are hard to approach. I know something about these harbours and spending small sums of money on them is almost money thrown away. Money has been voted several times for 'this New London harbour, but storms have carried the works away. I hope this vote will be sufficient to put the harbour in a permanently safe condition. I would like Mr. HYMAN.
to know whether this is let by tender or by day work.


Charles Smith Hyman: Of course the minister must be guided very largely by the reports of his engineers in matters of this kind. The report of the engineer was that this harbour was damaged by a storm in November, 1904. The vote was less, but this amount was put in simply to carry out the engineer's report to put the wharf in good repair.


Alexander Martin: Was the work let by tender before ?


Charles Smith Hyman: Yes, the original work.


Alexander Martin: Who is the superintendent of the work ?


Mr. HYMAN  P.@: McCallum.
Point Prim Island, P.E.I.-wharf, $5,000.


Charles Smith Hyman: The amount put in the estimates is only $5,000, but on further investigation it was found that the work will be larger than was anticipated, and I have given instructions to the engineer to examine further before proceeding.


Alexander Martin: This was in the estimates last year. Is it put here merely to figure up a large sum against the island, or is" the work to be proceeded with ?


Charles Smith Hyman: The vote was in the sup-plementaries last year. Then reports came to me that the cost of the work would be rather larger than I cared to ask the House for, and I am now trying to see if we cannot reduce the estimated cost.


Mr. W. F. MACLEAN.: The right of way was purchased for $350, and I understand that the total cost of the approaches to the wharf was $396.04. This matter has been before the House on three or four different occasions, and the work is a very important one and should receive the immediate attention of the department. Point Prim Island is a long distance from any shipping port and is sadly in want of this wharf.


Charles Smith Hyman: The fact that the item is in the estimates is proof that the government intends to go on with the work, but the cost is larger than we anticipated, and I am obtaining further information before asking parliament to supplement the vote.


Alexander Martin: The engineers of the government have been down there on more than one occasion, especially before the last elections, and the department ought now to have all the information it requires regarding the character of the work. I do not see the use of putting in a vote of $5,000, as was done last year and is now being done, and then telling the House that the department are waiting for the engineer's report, when the engineers have been down there and made their examination and ought to have reported. Surely if this wharf 1 cannot be built for $5,000 and the govern-

meut intend building it, they should ask a Richmond Bay, P.E.I.

reconstruction of wharf larger vote.	near Grand river ferry, $5,000.


Charles Smith Hyman: We cannot increase the vote now in the estimates except by bringing down another item, and I desire to know what the wharf will cost before I ask for another vote. I do not want to begin a work that will cost $30,000 when only $5,000 are available.


Andrew B. Ingram: Is it the intention of the department to go on with the work ?


Charles Smith Hyman: If it be found to cost $30,000, I shall have to seriously consider whether I should ask for more money or let it wait. I hope we will be able to do the work for $15,000, but the estimates of the engineers are not entirely satisfactory, and I want to be certain before proceeding.
Repairs to piers and breakwaters, P.E.I., $6,-
000.


Alexander Martin: There are several works on the island which require immediate attention. One is the harbour at Mount Stewart in which I know the hon. gentleman from King's county (Mr. J. J. Hughes) is interested. That harbour requires dredging and also a little more wharf accommodation. The village is a growing one and has quite a large trade. If the minister can see his way clear to putting that harbour in repair, he will be doing a very necessary work.


Charles Smith Hyman: I shall ask my engineer to take a note of the hon. gentleman's representations. My hon. friend will understand that this is not a vote for dredging but simply for repairs. Has the wharf he refers to been transferred to the government ?


Alexander Martin: I believe it has.


Charles Smith Hyman: If not transferred to the government, we do not repair it.


Alexander Martin: Would it not. be in the same position as some wharfs you are building in Nova Scotia ?


Charles Smith Hyman: When we build any wharfs in Nova Scotia, the title is with the government.


Alexander Martin: This is in the same position.
Repairs to piers and breakwaters, P.E.I.- creosoted timber, $5,000.


Charles Smith Hyman: This is to enable the department to buy a certain amount of creosoted timber, so that we will be in a position to make repairs quickly.


Andrew B. Ingram: Did you purchase any last year ?


Charles Smith Hyman: No.


Andrew B. Ingram: Has any action been taken for the purchase of the material ?


Charles Smith Hyman: We have given the order.


Charles Smith Hyman: This is for the work of reconstruction and repairing.
Rustico harbour, P.E.I.-breakwater on Robinson's Island, south side of entrance to harbour, $11,000.


Angus Alexander McLean: I understand that last fall a vessel went ashore there by reason of the channel having filled up with sand. Investigation was made by the government engineers to ascertain the cause, and the hon. minister will no doubt have some information on that point. If the filling in was caused by the construction of this breakwater, the breakwater may not have been put in the right place. Last fall a vessel went ashore there and the loss was attributed to the channel shifting. I understand an investigation took place, and that perhaps the minister has information which would enable him to state whether the disaster arose through the construction of this work, or in what other way.


Charles Smith Hyman: We have no information in the department as to the cause of Ithe accident. I understand that this is a very difficult harbour. The object of this work is to produce, by the process of scouring, a channel which will always remain. The work is undertaken on the rep.ort of the engineer of the department which favours this as the proper way to carry it out.


Andrew B. Ingram: There would appear to be two entrances to this harbour as there are two items.


Charles Smith Hyman: There are two breakwaters, one on the north side and one on the south.


Andrew B. Ingram: There is an item here of money paid to the King's Printer and charged to this work. What is that for ?


Charles Smith Hyman: For printing the specifications.


Alexander Martin: Rustico harbour is one of the most important harbours on the north side. I see that this money was voted last year. I placed a question on the order paper as regards dredging done in Rustico harbour, and the minister, in reply, stated that there was none.


Charles Smith Hyman: That is right.


Alexander Martin: I visited the place several times, and there was some dredging being done, but not by the usual dredge. Whether the Minister of Public Works has any knowledge of it or not, there was dredging there. Rustico harbour is in one of the most thickly settled parts of Prince Edward Island, and the people have been there a long time, many of them being French Aca-dians. There are many fishermen among them, yet they have no harbour or wharf accommodation. Their toil is very severe,

and some facilities for the pursuit of their avocation should be provided. For the last four or five years work has been done by day labour, and so badly done that the first storm swept it away. I hope that this time not only will a contract be given, but that the work will be promptly advertised and that there will be no delay.
Mr. LEFURGEY'. I would like to go back for a moment to Richmond bay, reconstruction of wharf, and ask the minister if he proposes to let that contract by tender ?


Charles Smith Hyman: I think the present intention is to do it by day's work. I see in the memorandum before me all the items with estimate of cost. I think the hon. gentleman (Mr. Lefurgey) heard me say that we advertised for tenders, but had no satisfactory response.
St. Peter's Bay-breakwater on east side of entrance to harbour, $7,500.


Andrew B. Ingram: We would like some explanation about this ?


Charles Smith Hyman: Tenders were called for, and some were received, but none of them satisfactory. Some ten days or two weeks ago, the resident engineer was asked to submit new plans and specifications, and on these, tenders will be called for.


Mr.   L A LOR@: I am a new member of the House and not thoroughly posted in the rules, but I think there is not a quorum present.


Charles Smith Hyman: I think the hon. member (Mr. Lalor) will find that there is a quorum ; twenty make a quorum and there are more than twenty members present.
Summerside harbour-breakwater, $20,000.


Alfred Alexander Lefurgey: In what year was this work first before the House ?


Charles Smith Hyman: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Lefurgey) has had a number of opportunities of discussing it. I think it was in 1899 that the matter was first brought before the House. The contract for the work was let in 1900.


Alfred Alexander Lefurgey: I think it first came up in 1898.


Charles Smith Hyman: I am only judging by the date of the contract.


Alfred Alexander Lefurgey: Were tenders received for the work in 1898 ?


Charles Smith Hyman: In 1900.


Alfred Alexander Lefurgey: What was the cause of the delay for those two years ?


Charles Smith Hyman: I have heard the hon gentleman discuss this subject several times. But, I shall be glad to go over it again. The hon. gentleman knows the situation there. There was a great question as to the charac-Mr. A. MARTIN.
ter of the work to be constructed in that harbour. It is a very long breakwater- 2,300 or 2,400 feet, if I am not mistaken-and a difficult work. After a certain progress had been made on the contract, the engineer of the department reported that it was questionable whether the character of the work being done in the shallower portion would be suitable for the whole work, and the contract, therefore, was not gone on with. A settlement was made with the contractor and the work has remained in that position ever since. So far as the department is concerned, I asked not only the engineer of the department, but the deputy to visit the work to see how it was standing the ravages of the ocean. The hon. gentleman knows that this is a very exposed place, and he knows that such a work as this has to be carefully considered. I have not fully persuaded myself that it would be in the interest of the public, or of the people of Summerside to make the rest of the work of the same character as that already done. I had hoped to \isit Summerside last year, but was unable to do so. I have engineers making a full report as to the matter, whether we dare continue that work in the way it has been begun. There are few works of this character, and I am sure the hon. members from Prince Edward Island would not like to see a work gone on with that would be in danger of early destruction by the sea.


Alfred Alexander Lefurgey: From the minister's standpoint what he has said may seem a plausible excuse for not finding out in the first place whether the work, as designed, would fulfil the purpose for which it was intended. It seems to me that the time from 1898 or 1897, when the plans were prepared and the matter brought before this House up to this year, is ample for the department to make up its mind. Now, in 1897 or 1898 when this work was called for, the department must have investigated and found that there was a necessity for it. The department must have reasonably satisfied themselves through their experts that the work would accomplish a great benefit to the harbour of Summerside. They must also have found out the class of work that would be required, and the conditions to which this breakwater would be subject to. They must have found out before asking for tenders that the work would be reasonably suitable to withstand the sea, and frost, and so forth. It seems to me that the department, after calling for tenders and getting a tender for $54,000, have been very lax in the pursuance of their duties in not pressing this tenderer to continue the work, or take it out of his hands and have an investigation in a year or two after the contractor had failed to proceed with this work. Now, we find that the contract was let in 1900, and here we are in 1905, and the minister comes and explains that he has sent a man down three or four years after the work has been

stopped to find out if the work is corroding, if it is standing the weather and the sea.


Charles Smith Hyman: The hon. gentleman says three or four years, as a matter of fact he went down in March, 1904.


Alfred Alexander Lefurgey: If the minister will look up the ' Hansard ' he will find that we have been questioning the minister in respect to this Summerside breakwater ever since 1900. There was no work going on in 1904.


Charles Smith Hyman: We stopped the work in 1904.


Alfred Alexander Lefurgey: In 1900, when I was running an election In the county of East Prince, there was a flaring poster, as I have already told the House, published broadcast through the streets of Summer-side, announcing that a breakwater would be built, and that from $15,000 to $20,000 per month would be spent on this work, and what a great boon it would be to the workingmen of Summerside. This work has been promised for years and years, and no further progress has been made. If it is the policy of this government to revote a work three or four years in succession to find out whether the class of work recommended by the department will stand the weather, then the public works of this country will be in a very bad state before we get anything accomplished. Now, I find that votes have been passed every year since 1898. I believe we figured it up a year or two ago and found that the votes and revotes for a contract that was originally to cost $54,000, amounted to $108,000 in the session of 1903. I think we had a vote last year and now we find another vote this year ; so that altogether for a work that was originally to cost $54,000, we have voted over $150,000. All this time we find our Liberal friends in that province pointing to this aggregate of votes and saying : See how great an amount of money we are getting for public works in Prince Edward Island. I want to point out how the people of Prince Edward Island are being fooled in the matter of public works. In the estimates of last year there was a paltry sum of $13,000 for public works in Prince county, and I find that this year, of that $13,000, $10,400 is a revote- only $2,600 has been spent in the county of Prince during the last year. I am not objecting to the minister's estimates with regard to the amount of money voted for public works in the county I have the honour to represent. But I must insist upon the department proceeding with some degree of speed on the public works which are admitted by them to be required for the benefit of the shipping of that county. 1 would like to know from the minister whether they intend to build this work, if a new plan has been put before the government, and whether they will call for tenders for this work in the near future. I have received by the last mail letters from people in Summerside asking whether this work is to be continued.


Charles Smith Hyman: I should be very sorry to remove anything from the estimates which would deprive the hon. gentleman of an opportunity of getting off the speech he has made on several occasions. The work is exactly in the position I have told him.
I cannot alter the conditions. If it is found that a work can be constructed there of a character that will stand and serve the purpose, that breakwater will be constructed. The engineer has been asked to report; and when we get his report the department will decide what to do.


Alfred Alexander Lefurgey: Will the minister tell me how they propose to go on ?


Charles Smith Hyman: By a new contract, by making plans and specifications for a work which will be of a character to ensure permanency. It is unfortunate, I acknowledge, the hon. gentleman has some grievance when he says that over $100,000 have been voted, and so little has been spent. He objects because a certain vote has been a re vote.


Alfred Alexander Lefurgey: It is to blind the people.


Charles Smith Hyman: I quite concede that the people of the county have been blinded. But let the hon. gentleman possess his soul in patience. We will have the work investigated. I have no desire to delay the work if it is necessary. This is a very long work, some 2,900 feet, and it is necessary that it should be made of a permanent character when it is undertaken.


Alfred Alexander Lefurgey: I think the department should now be seized of the knowledge whether this breakwater is going to be built, and how it is going to be built. Surely the people of Summerside ought not to be obliged to wait another year for that breakwater. Will the minister assure me that plans and specifications will be prepared, and tenders called for, and the work proceeded with in the spring 1


Charles Smith Hyman: There is no hon. gentleman to whom I would like better to give such an assurance. But I cannot give an assurance of that kind after the statements I have made that it is necessary for the department to be perfectly sure of the char-aster of the work which they contemplate constructing there, in order that it may be of a permanent character. The hon. gentleman knows as well as I do that there are great difficulties, it is a large undertaking. He knows that a breakwater of that length reaching out into deep water requires to be carefully considered. I can only give the hon. gentleman the assurance that I will have reports from the engineers, and when we are satisfied of the proper

character of the work to construct there, we will go on.


Alfred Alexander Lefurgey: There is no doubt the minister will find that they can put a breakwater there that will fill the bill.


Charles Smith Hyman: There is no doubt that we could put a breakwater there that would fill the bill, but it would possibly cost $200,000 or $300,000. The question of cost comes in.


Alfred Alexander Lefurgey: Then it is a question of cost ?


Charles Smith Hyman: Very largely.


Alfred Alexander Lefurgey: May I ask the hon. minister what length they would go to in constructing a breakwater in Summerside harbour ?


Charles Smith Hyman: The good faith of the de partment is shown in entering into the original contract in 1900. The amount of that contract was $55,000. I do not think that the extension of a work of that character all the way could be carried out for that money. It is a question of cost, and we want to be sure before we proceed with the work. If, having a vote for $20,000, I entered into a contract for a work that would cost $150,000 or $200,000, I would be very seriously critcised in this House.


Alfred Alexander Lefurgey: I think the hon. gentleman said last year that the amount that would be required to complete that work satisfactory would be in the neighbourhood of $150,000. May I ask the hon. gentleman if, in case the department find that a useful work can be constructed for that amount of money, we can have his assurance that the work will go on after a careful investigation has been made ? I presume they have the details of this work in the department, and if he decides that it can be advantageously proceeded with at a cost of $150,000, will the hon. gentleman give us the assurance that it will be gone on with ?


Charles Smith Hyman: I am sorry I cannot give the hon. gentleman that definite assurance. I do not think I would be justified, with a vote of $20,000, in entering into a contract for a work that would cost,$150,000.
Wood Islands-protection of southern breakwater from scour, $750.


Alexander Martin: There has been a good deal of money spent on this harbour.


Charles Smith Hyman: It is quite a large work.


Alexander Martin: I know it. I am perfectly familiar with the work. I suppose the hon. minister has some information on that point ?


Charles Smith Hyman: Yes.


Alexander Martin: Before we pass from this item of $90,000 for Prince Edward Mr. HYMAN.
Island, I would call the attention of the hon. Minister to the harbour of Belle River, on the southern side of the island, where there is a great deal of business done. I think a small appropriation, perhaps $4,000 or $5,000, would put that harbour in a very efficient condition. I think there are some reports in the hon. gentleman's department in regard to Belle River. I think that a sum was voted some years ago, or was proposed to be voted, for the improvement of that harbour. This is a section of the country in which a good deal of business is done, and if the hon. gentleman would give his attention to the matter, and look at the reports in his office, I think he would come to the conclusion that an expenditure such as I have suggested is necessary at this point.


Charles Smith Hyman: I have asked the engineer to examine the reports in regard to that harbour.
Harbours and rivers. New Brunswick-Camp-bellton-wharf extension and repairs, $50,000.


Andrew B. Ingram: Would the hon. gentleman give us a little explanation about that ?


Charles Smith Hyman: This work is under contract. The contract was let on the 11th October, and amounted to $35,300. In addition to that, the department were called upon, as the result of an arbitration, to pay $35,000 for the wharf. It is only fair to tell the committee that from the information the department have it will be necessary to ask for another vote in the supplementary estimates. The wharf at Camp-bellton is not at all sufficient for the amount of business that is being done there. There is the boat service by the south shore, which it will be imperative practically to provide a landing for. In addition to that, the number of boats loading lumber every year and the shipping generally are increasing to such an extent that the department will be justified in asking the House for a further vote, on which this whole work can be discussed.


Oswald Smith Crocket: What will the total cost be ?


Charles Smith Hyman: The amount of the contract which has been entered into is $35,300.


Andrew B. Ingram: There may be some other questions to be asked in connection with that item.


Charles Smith Hyman: There will be a new vote, and it can then be discussed.
Some resolutions reported.
Sir FREDERICK BORDEN moved the adjournment of the House.


Andrew B. Ingram: I know that Monday is private members' day. Perhaps the hon. minister can tell us, if private members get through with their business, what the government propose to do after that ?

'Mr. HYMAN. Private members' work will be taken up, and if we get through with that we will go into supply.


Andrew B. Ingram: On what items ?


Charles Smith Hyman: I cannot answer that, but it will not be on the Public Works estimates.


Andrew B. Ingram: Could any of the ministers say what estimates they will discuss ?


Charles Smith Hyman: It is a difficult matter. If the hon. Minister of Agriculture is here, I think he will go on with his estimates, but I would not like to be bound down to saying exactly what we will go on with. It will be private members' day, and I suppose it will be taken up with private members' business. -


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House adjourned at 11.05 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Monday, February 27, 1905.